natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The classification as an activity falling within the exercise of public powers or as an economic activity must be carried out separately for each activity exercised by a given entity.
Kvalifikacijo, ali gre za dejavnosti na podlagi javnih pooblastil ali gospodarske dejavnosti, je namreč treba opraviti ločeno za vsako dejavnost, ki jo opravlja določena organizacija.
In the present case, it is necessary to distinguish the participation of a legal person such as ELPA in the decisionmaking process of the public authorities from the economic activities engaged in by that same legal person, such as the organisation and commercial exploitation of motorcycling events.
V tej zadevi je treba ločevati med udeležbo pravne osebe, kot je ELPA, v postopku odločanja javnih organov od gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki jih izvaja ista pravna oseba, kot sta organizacija ali gospodarsko izkori�čanje motociklističnih tekmovanj.
It follows that the power of such a legal person to give its consent to applications for authorisation to organise those events does not prevent its being considered an undertaking for the purposes of Community competition law so far as concerns its economic activities referred to above.
Zato pooblastilo take pravne osebe za izdajo soglasja k vlogi za dovoljenje za organizacijo teh tekmovanj ni ovira, da bi se jo obravnavalo kot podjetje v smislu konkurenčnega prava Skupnosti glede njenih navedenih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
As regards the effect that the fact that ELPA does not seek to make a profit may have on that classification, it should be noted that, in Case C-222/04 Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze and Others [2006] ECR I-289, paragraphs 122 and 123), the Court stated that the fact that the offer of goods or services is made without profit motive does not prevent the entity which carries out those operations on the market from being considered an undertaking, since that offer exists in competition with that of other operators which do seek to make a profit.
Glede vpliva, ki ga ima lahko na to opredelitev dejstvo, da cilj ELPE ni dobiček, je treba navesti, da je Sodi�če v sodbi z dne 10. januarja 2006 v zadevi Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze in drugi (C-222/04, ZOdl., str. I-289, točki 122 in 123) odločilo, da nepridobitno ponujanje blaga in storitev ni ovira za to, da se organizacijo, ki izvaja dejavnosti na trgu, obravnava kot podjetje, saj je ta ponudba konkurenčna ponudbi drugih izvajalcev, katerih cilj je dobiček.
That is the case of activities engaged in by a legal person such as ELPA.
Tako je v primeru dejavnosti, ki jih izvaja pravna oseba, kot je ELPA.
The fact that MOTOE, the applicant in the main proceedings, is itself a non-profit-making association has, from that point of view, no effect on the classification as an undertaking of a legal person such as ELPA.
Dejstvo, da je MOTOE, tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, tudi nepridobitno dru�tvo, s tega zornega kota nikakor ne vpliva na to, da se pravna oseba, kot je ELPA, opredeli kot podjetje.
First, it is not inconceivable that, in Greece, there exist, in addition to the associations whose activities consist in organising and commercially exploiting motorcycling events without seeking to make a profit, associations
Po eni strani ni izključeno, da v Grčiji obstajajo poleg združenj, katerih dejavnost je organizacija in tržno izkori�čanje motociklističnih tekmovanj, katerih cilj ni dobiček, združenja, ki imajo za cilj dobiček in ki so tako v konkurenčnem položaju z ELPO, kar bo moralo predložitveno sodi�če preveriti.
Second, non-profit-making associations which offer goods or services on a given market may find themselves in competition with one another.
Po drugi strani se lahko združenja, katerih cilj ni dobiček in ponujajo blago ali storitve na določenem trgu, znajdejo v konkurenčnem položaju.
The success or economic survival of such associations depends ultimately on their being able to impose, on the relevant market, their services to the detriment of those offered by the other operators.
Uspeh ali gospodarsko preživetje takih združenj je namreč dolgoročno odvisno od njihovih zmogljivosti na zadevnem trgu uveljaviti storitve, ki jih ponujajo, v �kodo storitev, ki jih ponujajo drugi izvajalci.
Consequently, a legal person such as ELPA must be considered an undertaking for the purposes of Community competition law.
Zato je treba pravno osebo, kot je ELPA, obravnavati kot podjetje v smislu konkurenčnega prava Skupnosti.
However, in order for it to fall within the scope of Article 82 EC, it must also occupy a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it.
Vendar mora, da zanjo velja člen 82 ES, imeti prevladujoč položaj na skupnem trgu ali na njegovem znatnem delu.
In that regard, it must be observed that, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, which is based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court (Case C-450/06 Varec [2008] ECR I-581, paragraph 23).
Pri tem je treba opozoriti, da v okviru postopka iz člena 234 ES, ki temelji na jasni ločitvi nalog med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, presoja zadevnih dejstev spada v pristojnost nacionalnega sodi�ča (sodba z dne 14. februarja 2008 v zadevi Varec, C-450/06, ZOdl., str. I-581, točka 23).
However, in order to give the national court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary.
Vendar lahko Sodi�če, da bi koristno odgovorilo predložitvenemu sodi�ču, slednjemu v duhu sodelovanja z nacionalnimi sodi�či poda vse smernice, ki se mu zdijo potrebne.
Before it is possible to assess whether a legal person such as ELPA has a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC, it is necessary to define the relevant market, both from the point of view of the goods or services concerned and from the geographic point of view (Case 27/76 United Brands and United Brands Continentaal v Commission [1978] ECR 207, paragraph 10).
Preden je mogoče presoditi, ali ima pravna oseba, kot je ELPA, na trgu prevladujoč položaj v smislu člena 82 ES, je treba razmejiti upo�tevni trg tako z vidika zadevnega proizvoda ali storitve kot z geografskega vidika (sodba z dne 14. februarja 1978 v zadevi United Brands in United Brands Continentaal proti Komisiji, 27/76, Recueil, str. 207, točka 10).
According to settled caselaw, for the purposes of applying Article 82 EC, the relevant product or service market includes products or services which are substitutable or sufficiently interchangeable with the product or service in question, not only in terms of their objective characteristics, by virtue of which they are particularly suitable for satisfying the constant needs of consumers, but also in terms of the conditions of competition and the structure of supply and demand on the market in question (see, to that effect, Case 31/80 L’Oréal [1980] ECR 3775, paragraph 25;
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso za namene uporabe člena 82 ES upo�tevni proizvodni ali storitveni trg vključuje proizvode ali storitve, ki so nadomestljivi ali dovolj zamenljivi z zadevnim proizvodom ali storitvijo ne le na podlagi njihovih objektivnih lastnosti, zaradi katerih �e posebej lahko zadovoljijo stalne potrebe potro�nikov, temveč tudi na podlagi konkurenčnih pogojev in sestave ponudbe in povpra�evanja na zadevnem trgu (glej v tem smislu sodbe z dne 11. decembra 1980 v zadevi L’Oréal, 31/80, Recueil, str. 3775, točka 25; z dne 9. novembra
In that regard, it is clear from the order for reference that the activities in which ELPA is engaged consist, first, in the organisation of motorcycling events and, second, in their commercial exploitation by means of sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts.
V zvezi s tem je iz predložitvene odločbe razvidno, da so dejavnosti, ki jih izvaja ELPA, tako organizacija motociklističnih tekmovanj kot njihovo tržno izkori�čanje s sklepanjem sponzorskih pogodb, pogodb o ogla�evanju in zavarovalnih pogodb.
Those two types of activities are not interchangeable but are rather functionally complementary.
Ti vrsti dejavnosti nista medsebojno zamenljivi, ampak funkcionalno dopolnjujoči.
The definition of the relevant geographical market calls, just like the definition of the product or service market, for an economic assessment.
Opredelitev upo�tevnega geografskega trga zahteva, kot opredelitev trga proizvodov ali storitev, presojo gospodarske narave.
The geographical market can thus be defined as the territory in which all traders operate under the same conditions of competition in so far as concerns specifically the relevant products or services.
Geografski trg je lahko opredeljen kot ozemlje, na katerem so vsi gospodarski subjekti v podobnem konkurenčnem položaju glede zadevnih proizvodov ali storitev.
It is sufficient if they are similar or sufficiently homogeneous (see, to that effect, United Brands and United Brands Continentaal v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 44 and 53).
S tega vidika ni nujno, da so objektivne konkurenčne razmere med izvajalci popolnoma enake (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo United Brands in United Brands Continentaal proti Komisiji, točki 44 in 53).
Furthermore, the market may be confined to a single Member State (see, to that effect, Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission, cited above, paragraph 28).
Tak trg je lahko omejen na eno samo državo članico (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie-Michelin proti Komisiji, točka 28).
As stated in the order for reference, and as was also confirmed at the hearing before the Court, the activities in which ELPA engages are confined to the territory of Greece.
Kot je navedeno v predložitveni odločbi in kar je bilo potrjeno na obravnavi na Sodi�ču, so dejavnosti ELPE omejene na gr�ko ozemlje.
However, the territory of a Member State may constitute a substantial part of the common market (see, to that effect, Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925, paragraph 31).
Vendar lahko ozemlje ene države članice sestavlja znaten del skupnega trga (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 18. junija 1991 v zadevi ERT, C-260/89, Recueil, str.
It is for the referring court, however, to determine whether the cri -terion relating to similar or sufficiently homogeneous conditions of competition is satisfied in the main proceedings.
I-2925, točka 31). Vsekakor je predložitveno sodi�če pristojno, da preveri, ali je merilo glede podobnih ali dovolj homogenih konkurenčnih pogojev v sporu o glavni stvari izpolnjeno.
It is with reference to the market thus defined that that court will have to assess whether ELPA has a dominant position.
Na tako opredeljenem trgu mora to sodi�če presoditi, ali ima ELPA prevladujoč položaj.
It should be recalled in this respect that it is clear from the caselaw that the concept of a ‘dominant position’ under Article 82 EC concerns a position of economic strength held by an undertaking, which enables it to prevent effective competition from being maintained on the relevant market by giving it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and, ultimately, consumers (United Brands and United Brands Continentaal v Commission, cited above, paragraph 65; Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461, paragraph 38; and Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie-Michelin v Commission, cited above, paragraph 30).
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da je v skladu s sodno prakso „prevladujoč položaj“, kot je določeno v členu 82 ES, položaj, v katerem ima podjetje gospodarsko moč, ki mu omogoča, da ovira obstoj dejanske konkurence na zadevnem trgu, tako da mu daje možnost, da znatno ravna neodvisno od svojih konkurentov, strank in navsezadnje potro�nikov (zgoraj navedena sodba United Brands in United Brands Continentaal proti Komisiji, točka 65; sodba z dne 13. februarja 1979 v zadevi Hoffmann-La Roche proti Komisiji, 85/76, Recueil, str. 461, točka 38, in zgoraj navedena sodba Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie-Michelin proti Komisiji, točka 30).
It should be added that an undertaking can be put in such a position when it is granted special or exclusive rights enabling it to determine whether and, as the case may be, in what conditions, other undertakings may have access to the relevant market and engage in their activities on that market.
Dodati je treba, da je podjetje lahko postavljeno v tak položaj, da mu je dodeljena posebna ali izključna pravica, da odloči, če in – v določenih primerih – pod katerimi pogoji lahko druga podjetja vstopajo na zadevni trg in na njem izvajajo svoje dejavnosti.
It should further be observed that Article 82 EC cannot be infringed by a rule such as that laid down in Article 49 of the Greek Road Traffic Code unless trade between Member States is affected by it.
Treba je �e dodati, da je kr�itev člena 82 ES z določbo, kot je člen 49 gr�kega zakona o cestnem prometu, mogoča le, če je prizadeta trgovina med državami članicami.
As the Advocate General pointed out in points 63 and 64 of her Opinion, such an effect on trade between Member States can be assumed only if it is possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability, on the basis of a set of objective legal and factual elements, that the behaviour in question may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on trade between Member States in such a way as might hinder the attainment of a single market between Member States (Case C-475/99 Ambulanz Glöckner [2001] ECR I-8089, paragraph 48).
Kot je navedla generalna pravobranilka v točkah 63 in 64 sklepnih predlogov, se ne more �teti, da je trgovina med državami članicami prizadeta, razen če se lahko na podlagi vseh objektivnih dejstev in dokazov z zadostno verjetnostjo predvidi, da bi zadevno ravnanje lahko neposredno ali posredno, dejansko ali potencialno vplivalo na trgovinske tokove med državami članicami, in sicer tako, da bi lahko �kodovalo uresničevanju cilja enotnega trga med državami članicami (sodba z dne 25. oktobra 2001 v zadevi Ambulanz Glöckner, C-475/99, Recueil, str. I-8089, točka 48).
Purely hypothetical or speculative effects that the conduct of an undertaking in a dominant position may have do not satisfy that criterion.
Povsem hipotetični ali �pekulativni učinki, ki jih lahko obsega ravnanje podjetja v prevladujočem položaju, ne izpolnjujejo tega merila.
Similarly, the impact on intracommunity trade must not be insignificant (Joined Cases C-215/96 and C-216/96 Bagnasco and Others [1999] ECR I-135, paragraph 60, and Ambulanz Glöckner, cited above, paragraph 48).
Tudi vpliv na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti ne sme biti neznaten (sodba z dne 21. januarja 1999 v združenih zadevah Bagnasco in drugi, C-215/96 in C-216/96, Recueil, str. I-135, točka 60, in zgoraj navedena sodba Ambulanz Glöckner, točka 48).
Accordingly, the effect on intraCommunity trade is normally the result of a com -bination of several factors which, taken separately, are not necessarily decisive (Case C-250/92 DLG [1994] ECR I-5641, paragraph 54).
Vpliv na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti torej na splo�no izhaja iz združitve več dejavnikov, ki posamezno niso nujno odločilni (sodba z dne 15. decembra 1994 v zadevi DLG, C-250/92, Recueil, str. I-5641, točka 54).
Furthermore, the assessment of whether the effect on trade between Member States is appreciable must take account of the conduct of the dominant undertaking in question, in so far as Article 82 EC precludes all conduct which is capable of affecting freedom of trade in a manner which might harm the attainment of the objectives of a single market between the Member States, in particular by sealing off domestic markets or by affecting the structure of competition within the single market (Case 22/78 Hugin Kassaregister and Hugin Cash Registers v Commission [1979] ECR 1869, paragraph 17).
Dalje je treba pri presoji, ali je vpliv na trgovino med državami članicami znaten, upo�tevati ravnanje zadevnega prevladujočega podjetja, saj člen 82 ES nasprotuje vsem ravnanjem, ki lahko vplivajo na svobodno trgovino na način, ki lahko �koduje uresničevanju ciljev enotnega trga med državami članicami, zlasti z zapiranjem domačih trgov ali s spreminjanjem konkurenčnih struktur na skupnem trgu (sodba z dne 31. maja 1979 v zadevi Hugin Kassaregister in Hugin Cash Registers proti Komisiji, 22/78, Recueil, str. 1869, točka 17).
The fact that the conduct of an undertaking in a dominant position relates only to the marketing of products in a single Member State is not sufficient to preclude the possibility that trade between Member States might be affected (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Cipolla and Others [2006] ECR I-11421, paragraph 45).
Dejstvo, da je edini namen ravnanja podjetja v prevladujočem položaju trženje proizvodov v eni sami državi članici, ne izključuje možnosti, da je lahko trgovina med državami članicami prizadeta (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 5. decembra 2006 v združenih zadevah Cipolla in drugi, C-94/04 in C-202/04, ZOdl., str. I-11421, točka 45).
Such conduct may have the effect of reinforcing the partitioning of markets on a national basis, thereby holding up the economic interpenetration which the Treaty is designed to bring about (see, by analogy, Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Manfredi and Others [2006] ECR I-6619, paragraphs 45 and 46).
Tako ravnanje namreč lahko krepi zapiranje trgov na nacionalni ravni, s čimer ovira prepletenost, za katero si prizadeva Pogodba (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 13. julija 2006 v združenih zadevah Manfredi in drugi, od C-295/04 do C-298/04, ZOdl., str. I-6619, točki 45 in 46).
So far as concerns, second, the scope of Article 86 EC, paragraph 1 thereof provides that, in the case of undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, Member States are neither to enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary, in particular, to the rules contained in the Treaty with regard to competition.
Dalje v zvezi z obsegom uporabe člena 86(1) ES države članice glede podjetij, ki so jim odobrile posebne pravice, ne smejo sprejeti ali ohraniti v veljavi ukrepov, ki so v nasprotju predvsem s pravili o konkurenci iz Pogodbe.
In this respect, it should be noted that a legal person such as ELPA, to which the power to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise motorcycling events has been granted, must be considered an undertaking which has been granted by the Member State concerned special rights within the meaning of Article 86(1) EC.
V zvezi s tem je treba pravno osebo, kot je ELPA, ki ji je podeljeno pooblastilo za izdajo soglasja k vlogi za dovoljenje za organizacijo motociklističnih dirk, obravnavati kot podjetje, ki mu je bila dodeljena izključna pravica v smislu člena 86(1) ES.
Article 86(2) EC allows Member States to confer, on undertakings to which they entrust the operation of services of general economic interest, exclusive rights which may hinder the application of the rules of the Treaty on competition in so far as restrictions on competition, or even the exclusion of all competition, by other economic operators are necessary to ensure the performance of the particular tasks assigned to the undertakings holding the exclusive rights (Case C-320/91 Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533, paragraph 14).
Člen 86(2) ES omogoča državam članicam, da podelijo podjetjem, ki jih pooblastijo za opravljanje storitev splo�nega gospodarskega pomena, izključne pravice, ki lahko ovirajo uporabo pravil o konkurenci iz Pogodbe, če so omejitve konkurence ali celo izključitev celotne konkurence s strani drugih gospodarskih subjektov nujne za izvajanje posebnih nalog, ki so dodeljene podjetjem imetnikom teh izključnih pravic (sodba z dne 19. maja 1993 v zadevi Corbeau, C-320/91, Recueil, str. I-2533, točka 14).
As regards the organisation and commercial exploitation of motorcycling events by a legal person such as ELPA, the Greek Government has not claimed that ELPA has been entrusted with the exercise of those activities through an act of public authority.
Gr�ka vlada glede organizacije in trgovskega izkori�čanja motociklističnih dirk s strani pravne osebe, kot je ELPA, ni trdila, da je bila slednja poobla�čena za izvajanje teh dejavnosti z oblastvenim aktom.
As regards the power to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise motorcycling events, that does indeed stem from an act of public authority, namely Article 49 of the Greek Road Traffic Code, but it cannot be classified as an economic activity, as the Advocate General observed at point 110 of her Opinion.
Poobla�čanje za izdajo soglasja k vlogi za dovoljenje za organizacijo motociklističnega tekmovanja izhaja iz oblastvenega akta, in sicer člena 49 gr�kega zakona o cestnem prometu, vendar ne more biti opredeljeno kot gospodarska dejavnost, kot je to navedla generalna pravobranilka v točki 110 sklepnih predlogov.
A legal person such as ELPA cannot therefore be considered an undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 86(2) EC.
Pravne osebe, kot je ELPA, torej ne moremo obravnavati kot podjetje, poobla�čeno za opravljanje storitev splo�nega gospodarskega pomena v smislu člena 86(2) ES.
As regards, third, the question whether Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC preclude a national rule, such as Article 49 of the Greek Road Traffic Code, which confers on a legal person like ELPA, which can itself take on the organisation of motorcycling events and their commercial exploitation, the power to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise those events, without that power being made subject to restrictions, obligations and review, it should be recalled that the mere creation or reinforcement of a dominant position through the grant of special or exclusive rights within the meaning of Article 86(1) EC is not in itself incompatible with Article 82 EC.
Glede vpra�anja – ali člena 82 ES in 86(1) ES nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, kot je člen 49 gr�kega zakona o cestnem prometu, ki daje pravni osebi, kot je ELPA, ki se lahko sama ukvarja z organizacijo motociklističnih tekmovanj in njihovim tržnim izkori�čanjem, pooblastilo za izdajo soglasja k vlogi za dovoljenje za organizacijo teh tekmovanj, ne da bi bili določeni meje, obveznosti in nadzor nad izvajanjem tega pooblastila – je treba spomniti, da zgolj to, da je do ustvarjanja ali krepitve prevladujočega položaja pri�lo z dodelitvijo posebnih ali izključnih pravic v smislu člena 86(1) ES, je združljivo s členom 82 ES.
On the other hand, a Member State will be in breach of the prohibitions laid down by those two provisions if the undertaking in question, merely by exercising the special or exclusive rights conferred upon it, is led to abuse its dominant position or where
Po drugi strani država članica kr�i prepovedi iz teh dveh določb, če začne zadevno podjetje zaradi izvr�evanja posebnih ali izključnih pravic, ki so mu bile podeljene, zlorabljati svoj prevladujoči položaj ali če bi zaradi teh pravic lahko nastal položaj,
In this respect, it is not necessary that any abuse should actually occur (see, to that effect, Case C-55/96 Job Centre [1997] ECR I-7119, paragraph 36).
S tega vidika ni nujno, da do zlorabe dejansko pride (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 11. decembra 1997 v zadevi Job Centre, C-55/96, Recueil, str. I-7119, točka 36).
In any event, Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC are infringed where a measure imputable to a Member State, and in particular a measure by which a Member State confers special or exclusive rights within the meaning of Article 86(1) EC, gives rise to a risk of an abuse of a dominant position (see, to that effect, ERT, cited above, paragraph 37; Merci convenzionali porto di Genova, cited above, paragraph 17; and Case C-380/05 Centro Europa 7 [2008] ECR I-349, paragraph 60).
V vsakem primeru gre za kr�itev členov 82 ES in 86(1) ES, če ukrep države članice, predvsem tak, s katerim podeli posebne ali izključne pravice v smislu zadnje določbe, pomeni tveganje za zlorabo prevladujočega položaja (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi ERT, točka 37; in Merci convenzionali porto di Genova, točka 17, ter sodbo z dne 31. januarja 2008 v zadevi Centro Europa 7, C-380/05, ZOdl., str. I-581, točka 60).