natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
TELECOM ITALIA tions and paragraph 2 is particularly informative in that regard in that it precludes the extension of terms which confer special or exclusive rights and those which would affect third parties.
�ale za eno leto, čeprav so v nasprotju z direktivo, če ne podeljujejo monopolnih pravic in ne �kodujejo pravnemu premoženju drugih; domneva, ki naj bi 31. decembra 1998 postala absolutna ovira.
although it was possible to extend for one year existing authorisations which were contrary to the directive, provided that those authorisations did not grant exclusive rights or prejudice the legal rights of third parties, in which case 31 December 1998 was the absolute time-limit.
tudi bistvene omejitve: drugi odstavek je zelo jasen v zvezi s tem, da prepoveduje ohranjanje pogojev, ki dajejo posebne ali izključne pravice ter druge, katerih ohranitev �kodi tretjim.
That view is confirmed by Recital 26 in the preamble to the directive, which states that ‘clauses in such authorisations contrary to Community law, in particular those conferring on the licensees special or exclusive rights, are … inoperative from the date indicated in the relevant Community measures; … regarding other rights which do not affect the interests of other undertakings …, Member States could extend their validity in order to avoid claims for compensation’.
Šestindvajseta uvodna izjava direktive potrjuje to idejo, s tem da „klavzulam [iz] dovoljenj, ki so v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, zlasti tistim, ki se nana�ajo na posebne ali izključne pravice imetnikov licenc [vzame učinek] od dneva, določenega v ustreznih določbah Skupnosti; […] pravicam, ki ne posegajo v interese drugih podjetij […], lahko države članice podalj�ajo čas veljavnosti, zaradi izogibanja od�kodninskim zahtevkom.“
Article 22(2) refers to the ‘terms’ of authorisations already in existence, which could be extended unless they gave ‘special or exclusive rights’, in which case they had to be terminated on 31 December 1997.
Člen 22(2) se v bistvu nana�a na „pogoje“ za nekdanja dovoljenja, ki se jih lahko podalj�a, razen če podeljujejo „izključne ali posebne pravice“, ki v tem primeru prenehajo 31. decembra 1997.
Article 22(3) refers to ‘obligations’ in such authorisations, which could remain in force until 31 December 1998.
Tretji odstavek navedenega člena se nana�a na „obveznosti“, ki izhajajo iz teh dovoljenj, ki se lahko ohranijo do 31. decembra 1998.
Those ‘obligations’ are a subgroup of the ‘terms’, a concept which is capable of including rights and obligations.
Navedene „obveznosti“ so podvrsta „pogojev“; pojem, ki lahko vsebuje pravice in bremena.
Since Article 22(3) begins with the phrase ‘[w]ithout prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2’, it is not appropriate to extend until 31 December 1998 ‘obligations’ linked to ‘special or exclusive rights’.
Glede na to, da se navedeni tretji odstavek začne z „brez poseganja v določbe drugega odstavka“, „obveznosti“, ki so povezane z „izključnimi ali posebnimi pravicami“, ni treba podalj�ati do 31. decembra 1998.
That systematic approach to the wording of Article 22 undermines the argument put forward at the hearing in these preliminary ruling proceedings by the representative of the Italian Government, who proposed that the two provisions be interpreted independently of one another, as though they were watertight compartments.
To sistematično približevanje v besedilu člena 22 nasprotuje stali�čem, ki jih je predstavnik italijanske vlade predstavil na obravnavi v zvezi s tem predhodnim vpra�anjem in predlagal ločeno razlago določb, kot da gre pri tem za ločeni zadevi.
Accordingly, the Member States were obliged to bring their rules into line with Directive 97/13 before 31 December 1997,
Državam članicam naj bi bilo zato naloženo, da svoje ureditve pred 31. decembrom 1997 prilagodijo Direktivi 97/13, vendar naj bi stara dovoljenja lahko podalj-
Therefore, as the representative of Telecom Italia has suggested, it is clear that the legislature wished to set a longer timelimit for bringing into line with Community law concessions and authorisations which, since they did not jeopardise the objectives of harmonisation in the Community, were not detrimental to freedom of competition.
Torej se zdi jasno, kot navaja predstavnik družbe Telecom Italia, da je zakonodajalec želel določiti dodatno obdobje za prilagoditev koncesij in dovoljenj, ki ne �kodijo svobodni igri konkurence, da ne bi ogrozil namenov usklajevanja Skupnosti.
In other words, Article 22 prohibits the extension, after 31 December 1997, of the provision of telecommunications services by a single undertaking or by a number of undertakings with special rights, and that prohibition automatically affects the fees paid in those circumstances.
C – Cena nekdanje koncesije po 31. decembru 1997 eno podjetje ali več, ki imajo posebne pravice, odla�a s ponujanjem telekomunikacijskih storitev, ta prepoved pa ima nujno za posledico protivrednosti v zvezi s temi posebnimi položaji.
An examination of the fee paid by Telecom Italia, of which it claims reimbursement in the main proceedings, is the next step in the analysis since, if it were concluded that it created special or exclusive rights or that its continuation prejudiced the interests of third parties, the fee should not have continued to be imposed during 1998.
Obravnava dajatve, ki jo je plačala družba Telecom Italia, katere povračilo zahteva v sporu o glavni stvari, predvideva naslednji korak v razmi�ljanju, čeprav se v letu 1998 ne bi mogla ohraniti, če se ugotovi, da ustvarja izključne in posebne pravice ali da njihovo ohranjanje �kodi interesom drugih.
Therefore, Telecom Italia is right to assert that, since it ceased to be the sole provider of telecommunications services in Italy on 1 January 1998, its obligation to pay the licence fee to the Italian Treasury ended on that date, and there are no grounds de lege lata or delege ferenda which would justify the extension of that fee.
Družba Telecom Italia trdi, da če je 1. januarja 1998 prenehala biti edini ponudnik telekomunikacijskih storitev v Italiji, je v tistem trenutku prenehala njena obveznost v javno blagajno plačevati ceno koncesije, ne da bi kak�en razlog, de lege data ali de lege ferenda, upravičeval njeno podalj�anje.
Neither the wording nor the spirit of the provision support any exemptions.
Niti besedilo določbe niti njen duh ne dopu�čata kakr�ne koli izjeme.
First of all, the second possibility should be discounted because, far from ‘affecting the rights of other undertakings’, the temporary extension of the payment by the former monopoly assists the activities of such undertakings because it imposes an additional charge on the former concession holder.
Najprej je treba opozoriti na drugo možnost; ne le da prehodno podalj�evanje plačila, ki ga plača propadli monopol, ne „�koduje pravicam drugih podjetij“, temveč tudi onemogoči nekdanjega koncesionarja, s ker mu naloži dodatno breme.
Directive 97/13 forms part of the Community’s efforts to liberalise the market for electronic communications, through the promotion of competition by means of not imposing on operators more restrictions or charges than are necessary, 26thereby limiting the power of the Member States to impose financial charges and prohibiting
Direktiva 97/13 je del poskusov Skupnosti pri liberalizaciji trga elektronskih komunikacij, pri čemer se daje prednost konkurenci, tako da se operaterjem ne nalaga več omejitev in bremen, kot je nujno 26, in se omejuje davčno oblast držav članic, ki ne
It might be argued that the first possibility should also be discounted because the contested measure does not give ‘special or exclusive rights’ but merely provides for payment in respect of such rights.
Prvo možnost bi doletela enaka usoda, ker sporni ukrep „ne podeljuje posebnih ali izključnih pravic“ in se omeji na njihovo poplačilo; vendar bi bilo absurdno vztrajati pri razmi�ljanju v tej skrajnosti, ker je izterjava plačila tesno povezana s tem privilegiranim položajem, ki ga nova ureditev zavrača.
However, it would be absurd to conclude the analysis at that point since the payment is closely linked to that situation of privilege which
Z drugimi besedami člen 22 prepoveduje, da
TELECOM ITALIA them from levying fees other than the ones provided for by the Community legislature. 27
TELECOM ITALIA smejo nalagati drugih dajatev, kot so tiste, ki jih je predvidel zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
For the purposes of ensuring, in accordance with the principles of transparency, nondiscrimination and proportionality, that all competitors were treated equally in the most sensitive stage, that is, at the time they entered the sector, and with a view to overturning the status quo inherited from the past, 28it would have been possible to impose on Telecom Italia in 1998 the fee corresponding to the former concession only if it enjoyed an advantage which needed to be counteracted and that payment was the only method capable of offsetting it.
S tem da se v najbolj občutljivem obdobju, to je v obdobju vključitve v sektor, sku�a z načeli sorazmernosti, preglednosti in prepovedi diskriminacije uvesti enakost med vsemi tekmeci, da se preseže status quo, ki je ostal iz preteklosti, 28bi se od družbe Telecom Italia v letu 1998 lahko zahtevala dajatev, ki bi ustrezala nekdanji koncesiji, če je to podjetje imelo prednost, ki jo je bilo treba izničiti, in je bilo navedeno plačilo edino sredstvo za to.
elements (the payment of a fee) of an institution (the exclusive concession) which the Community legislation abolishes 29 but rather to rely on other methods created by that legislation to achieve equality, by imposing specific (‘asymmetrical’ to quote the representative of Italia Telecom at the hearing in the present proceedings) obligations on dominant undertakings.
temveč bi bila to uporaba drugih poti, ki jih je vzpostavila navedena ureditev za dosego ravnovesja, tako da se podjetjem s prevladujočim položajem naloži posebne obveznosti (ki so po mnenju predstavnika družbe Telecom Italia, izraženega na obravnavi v zvezi s tem predhodnim vpra�anjem, „nesorazmerne“).
One useful example is Article 4a of Directive 90/388, inserted by Directive 96/19, which requires the Member States to ensure that undertakings which hold special or exclusive rights provide interconnection to their public network and their voice telephony services to other undertakings authorised to provide such networks or services. 30
Lep primer je člen 4a Direktive 90/388, dodan z Direktivo 96/19, da bi se države članice prisililo, da zagotovijo, da podjetja, ki so imetniki posebnih in izključnih pravic, omogočijo preostalim podjetjem, ki so poobla�čena za opravljanje teh storitev, medmrežno povezavo z njihovim javnim omrežjem in njihovimi storitvami govorne telefonije. 30
29 — For that reason, the Commission’s concerns are unnecessary, since it argues in favour of disregarding cases where the national court finds that an undertaking which enjoyed special or exclusive rights before Directive 97/13 now has a dominant position.
29 – Iz tega razloga so odveč skrbi Komisije, ki se nagiba k izvzetju primerov, v katerih nacionalno sodi�če ugotovi obstoj prevladujočega položaja podjetja, ki je pred Direktivo 97/13 uživalo izključne in posebne pravice.
The judgment in Joined Cases C-544/03 and C-545/03 Mobistar and Belgacom Mobile [2005] ECR I-7723 is irrelevant in that connection, since it concerned a communal tax on telecommunications infrastructure (pylons, masts and transmission antennae for mobile telephones) which was lawful in principle but liable, in certain circumstances, to affect competition and, therefore, to infringe Article 3c of Directive 90/388, inserted by Commission Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 (OJ 1996 L 20, p.
Sodba z dne 8. septembra 2005 v združenih zadevah Mobistar in Belgacom Mobile (C-544/03 in C-545/03, ZOdl., str. I-7723) v zvezi s tem ni relevantna, ker se nana�a na občinski davek na telekomunikacijsko infrastrukturo (stolpe, drogove in oddajne antene za mobilne telefone), ki ga pravo Skupnosti načeloma dopu�ča, vendar lahko v določenih okoli�činah izkrivlja konkurenco in je torej lahko v nasprotju s členom 3c Direktive 90/388, dodan z Direktivo Komisije 96/2/ES z dne 16. januarja 1996 (UL L 20, str.
59), whereas, in the present case, the Court must give a ruling on a fee which is manifestly contrary to the law of the European Union.
59), medtem ko se v tem primeru sodi�če sooča z dajatvijo, ki je očitno v nasprotju s pravom Evropske unije.
Although it is a point which the referring court must clarify, it has not been proved that, at the relevant time (1 January 1998), the undertaking which held the former Italian monopoly enjoyed a position of superiority vis-à-vis its competitors.
Torej, čeprav gre za skrajnost, ki jo mora razjasniti predložitveno sodi�če, ni bilo dokazano, da je v zadevnem času (1. januarja 1998) družba, imetnica nekdanjega italijanskega monopola, uživala prednost v primerjavi s svojimi tekmeci.
Furthermore, in my opinion, if that were the case, the most appropriate method of ensuring that competitors are on an equal footing at the outset would not be to retain one of the
V teh okoli�činah po mojem mnenju ohranitev enega od elementov (plačilo dajatve) določenega instituta (izključne koncesije), ki mu pravni
27 — Paragraph 38 of the judgment in Albacom and Infostrada and point 52 of my Opinion in that case.
27 – Sodba Albacom in Infostrada, točka 38, in moji sklepni predlogi v tej zadevi, točka 52.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice replies to the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio as follows:
Glede na navedeno predlagam, naj Sodi�če na vpra�anje Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio odgovori:
Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services, and specifically Articles 11, 22 and 25 thereof, preclude Member States from requiring a former holder of an exclusive concession or a holder of special rights which have been terminated, which currently has an individual licence, to pay, until 31 December 1998, fees and charges other than those provided for in Article 11.
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/13/ES z dne 10. aprila 1997 o skupnem okviru za splo�na dovoljenja in posamične licence v sektorju telekomunikacijskih storitev in predvsem njeni členi 11, 22 in 25 nasprotujejo, da države članice do 31. decembra 1998 zahtevajo od nekdanjega izključnega koncesarja ali imetnika ugaslih posebnih pravic, ki ima sedaj posamično licenco za dejavnosti, plačilo dajatev in prispevkov, ki niso določene v navedenem členu 11.
2008 — CASE C-296/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-296/06
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 October 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, sodna tajnica: L. Hewlett, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 4. oktobra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
TELECOM ITALIA gives the following
TELECOM ITALIA izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 11, 22 in 25 Direktive 97/13/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 10. aprila 1997 o skupnem okviru za splo�na dovoljenja in posamične licence na področju telekomunikacijskih storitev (UL L 117, str. 15).
The reference was made in proceedings between Telecom Italia SpA (‘Telecom Italia’) on the one hand and the Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Ministry of the Economy and Finance) and the Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Ministry of Communications) on the other concerning the obligation imposed on Telecom Italia to pay a fee based on a year’s turnover from the final date laid down for transposition into national law of Directive 97/13.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Telecom Italia SpA (v nadaljevanju: Telecom Italia) in Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (ministrstvo za ekonomijo in finance) ter Ministero delle Comunicazioni (ministrstvo za komunikacije) zaradi obveznosti plačila pristojbine, določene na podlagi prometa družbe, ki je bila družbi Telecom Italia naložena za leto po skrajnem roku, določenem za prenos Direktive 97/13 v nacionalno pravo.
Articles 6 and 11(1) of Directive 97/13 concerning the fees and charges for general authorisations procedures and individual licences respectively provide that the
Člena 6 in 11(1) Direktive 97/13, ki se nana�ata na dajatve in pristojbine za izdajanje splo�nih dovoljenj oziroma posamičnih licenc, določata, da države članice zagotovijo,
Member States are to ensure that any fees imposed on undertakings as part of authorisation procedures seek only to cover the administrative costs incurred in the issue, management, control and, as appropriate, enforcement of the system of general authorisations or the applicable individual licences.
2008 – ZADEVA C-296/06 da je namen dajatev, naloženih podjetjem iz naslova postopkov za izdajo dovoljenj, zgolj pokritje administrativnih stro�kov, povezanih z izdajo, vodenjem, nadzorom in, odvisno od primera, izvajanjem sistema splo�nih dovoljenj ali uporabo veljavnih posamičnih licenc.
The general timelimit provided for the entry into force of Directive 97/13 is set out in the first paragraph of Article 25 thereof, which reads as follows:
Splo�ni rok za začetek izvajanja Direktive 97/13 je določen v členu 25, odstavek 1, in določa:
‘Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive and publish the conditions and procedures attached to authorisations as soon as possible and, in any event, not later than 31 December 1997.
„Države članice sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise, ki so potrebni za uskladitev s to direktivo in v najkraj�em možnem času, vsekakor pa najkasneje do 31. decembra 1997, objavijo pogoje in postopke, povezane z dovoljenji.
They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.’
O tem nemudoma obvestijo Komisijo.“
Article 22 of Directive 97/13 contains a specific provision regarding authorisations existing at the date of its entry into force:
Člen 22 Direktive 97/13 vsebuje posebno določbo o dovoljenjih, veljavnih na dan, ko začne veljati ta direktiva:
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 sprejmejo ustrezne ukrepe, da se dovoljenja, veljavna na dan, ko začne veljati ta direktiva, uskladijo z njenimi določbami do 1. januarja 1999.
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
Če se zaradi uporabe določb te direktive spremenijo pogoji za obstoječa dovoljenja, lahko države članice podalj�ajo veljavnost teh pogojev, razen tistih, ki pode-
TELECOM ITALIA 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.
TELECOM ITALIA ljujejo posebne ali izključne pravice, ki so prenehale ali morajo prenehati v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, če se s tem ne poseže v pravice, ki jih imajo v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, vključno s to direktivo, druga podjetja.
In such cases, Member States shall notify the Commission of the action taken to that end and shall state the reasons therefor.
V takem primeru države članice obvestijo Komisijo o ukrepih, sprejetih v ta namen, in o razlogih zanje.
Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2, obligations in authorisations existing at the date of entry into force of this Directive which have not been brought into line by 1 January 1999 with the provisions of this Directive shall be inoperative.
Ne glede na določbe odstavka 2 prenehajo veljati obveznosti, ki se nana�ajo na dovoljenja, veljavna na dan, ko začne veljati ta direktiva, in ki do 1. januarja 1999 ne bodo usklajene z določbami te direktive.
Where justified, Member States may, upon request, be granted a deferment of that date by the Commission.’
V upravičenih primerih lahko Komisija na predlog države članice navedeni rok preloži.“
The Postal and Telecommunications Code
Zakonik o po�ti in telekomunikacijah
Article 188 of the Codice Postale provides that ‘concession holders are required to pay the State an annual charge in the amount prescribed in the present Decree or in the instrument granting the concession’.
Člen 188 po�tnega zakonika je določal: „[k]oncesionar mora državi plačati letno pristojbino, ki se določi s tem dekretom, s podzakonskim aktom ali s koncesijskim aktom“.
That charge was calculated in proportion to the gross receipts or profits obtained from the service licensed, less the amounts paid to the operator of the public network.
Omenjena pristojbina je bila določena glede na bruto dohodek iz dejavnosti, ki je bila predmet koncesije, pri čemer se je od�telo plačilo upravljavcu javnega omrežja.
Presidential Decree No 318 of 22 September 1997
Dekret predsednika republike �t. 318
Article 2(3) to (6) of that decree provide as follows:
Člen 2, od (3) do (6), tega dekreta določa:
Until 1 January 1998, the special and exclusive rights for the provision of voice telephony services and the related installation and supply of public telecommunications networks shall be maintained. …
Posebne in izključne pravice za ponujanje storitev govorne telefonije ter za name�čanje in dobavo pripadajočih javnih telekomunikacijskih omrežij se ohranijo do 1. januarja 1998.
The licences for public use and the authorisations referred to in Article 184(1) of the Codice Postale existing at the time of the entry into force of these regulations shall be amended, on the initiative of the [national regulatory authority], before 1 January 1999, with a view to bringing them into line with the provisions contained herein.
Koncesije za javno uporabo in dovoljenja iz člena 184(1) po�tnega zakonika, veljavne na dan, ko začne veljati ta uredba, se za uskladitev z njenimi določbami na predlog [nacionalnega uredbenega organa] spremenijo do 1. januarja 1999.
Where application of the provisions of these regulations makes amendments to the terms of existing licences and authorisations, terms other than those giving special or exclusive rights which have been abolished or are to be abolished under these regulations, shall remain valid, subject to the rights which other undertakings derive, in particular, from Community law.
Če uporaba določb te uredbe zahteva spremembo koncesijskih pogojev in obstoječih dovoljenj, ostanejo pogoji, ki ne podeljujejo posebnih ali izključnih pravic, ki so oziroma bodo na podlagi te uredbe prenehale, veljavni, in sicer ne glede na pravice, ki jih imajo druga podjetja, med drugim, na podlagi prava Skupnosti.
Except for subparagraphs (4) and (5), obligations arising from licences and authorisations existing on the date on which these regulations came into force which have not been brought into line with the provisions of the latter shall be void from 1 January 1999.’
Z izjemo določb iz odstavkov 4 in 5 prenehajo 1. januarja 1999 veljati obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz koncesij in dovoljenj, veljavnih na dan, ko začne veljati ta uredba, in ki do prej omenjenega dne ne bodo usklajene z njenimi določbami.“
Article 6(20) of Decree No 318/1997 provides:
Člen 6(20) dekreta �t. 318/1997 določa: