natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Likewise, the Court of First Instance, by stating that the Commission’s position deprives Article 3a(3) of the Directive of all practical effect, misinterpreted that provision, because that would mean that for each event designated by a Member State there would necessarily have to be, in other Member States, television broadcasters liable to acquire the exclusive broadcasting rights to that event in the first State.
Prav tako je Sodi�če prve stopnje s pritrditvijo, da to stali�če Komisije členu 3a(3) Direktive povsem jemlje polni učinek, napačno razlagalo to določbo, ker bi to pomenilo, da bi morali za vsak dogodek, ki ga država članica označi, v drugi državi nujno obstajati izdajatelji televizijskih programov, ki bi lahko odkupili izključne pravice prenosa tega dogodka v prvonavedeni državi članici.
The reality of such differences is illustrated by the TV Danmark 1 case, which gave rise to a judgment of the Court of Appeal and another of the House of Lords, regarding the performance in the United Kingdom of obligations set out by the Kingdom of Denmark in relation to events of major importance for society in that Member State.
Dejanski obstoj teh razlik naj bi ponazarjala zadeva TV Danmark 1 – ki je privedla do sodbe Court of Appeal in sodbe House of Lords – o tem, kako Združeno kraljestvo izpolnjuje obveznosti, ki jih je Kraljevina Danska določila v zvezi z dogodki velikega družbenega pomena za to državo članico.
Under the United Kingdom system, it is sufficient if a free-to-air television broadcaster reaching most of the population of the notifying Member State has had a fair opportunity to acquire the exclusive rights in ques-
V skladu z britansko ureditvijo naj bi zadostovalo, da ima brezplačno dostopen izdajatelj televizijskih programov, ki pokriva večino prebivalstva države članice, ki je
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM it directly affects his legal situation and its implementation is purely automatic and results from Community rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules.
KOMISIJA PROTI INFRONT WM ureditve Skupnosti, ne da bi bili za njegovo uporabo potrebni drugi izvedbeni ukrepi. 20 sporočila ukrepe, primerno možnost nakupa zadevnih izključnih pravic.
20 tion. Under the Danish system, on the other hand, a television broadcaster which has acquired exclusive rights may exercise them only if it is able to make arrangements to ensure the necessary coverage through other broadcasters, unless it can show that this is not reasonably possible.
V danski ureditvi pa lahko izdajatelj televizijskih programov, ki je kupil izključne pravice, te uresničuje le, če je s posredovanjem drugih izdajateljev sposoben sprejeti ukrepe za zagotovitev potrebne pokritosti, razen če lahko dokaže, da to razumno ni mogoče.
The Commission complains that the Court of First Instance did not demonstrate that each of those two conditions was satisfied.
Komisija Sodi�ču prve stopnje očita, da ni pokazalo, da je vsaka od teh predpostavk izpolnjena.
It is therefore wrong to maintain that the implementation of the Commission’s decision under Article 3a(2) of the Directive is purely automatic and results from Community rules alone.
Tako naj bi bilo napačno trditi, da je uporaba odločbe, ki jo je Komisija sprejela na podlagi člena 3a(2) Direktive, povsem samodejna in da izhaja zgolj iz ureditve Skupnosti.
As regards, first, the contested measure’s effects on Infront’s situation, the Commission argues primarily that the contested measure would produce, for that company, only indirect economic consequences and that its legal position would remain unaltered.
Komisija v zvezi s posledicami izpodbijanega akta za položaj družbe Infront najprej navaja, da naj bi imel ta za družbo le gospodarske posledice in da je njen pravni položaj ostal nespremenjen.
I do not agree with that analysis for the following reasons.
S tem se ne strinjam iz naslednjih razlogov.
Infront challenges that analysis and submits that the Court of First Instance correctly held that the contested measure concerned it directly.
Družba Infront to analizo prereka in zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje upravičeno menilo, da jo izpodbijani akt zadeva neposredno.
As the Court of First Instance stated in paragraph 165 of the judgment under appeal, the measures notified by the United Kingdom and, consequently, the contested measure have the effect of depriving Infront of the power freely to dispose of its television broadcasting rights to the 2002 and 2006 FIFA World Cup finals.
Kot je Sodi�če prve stopnje navedlo v točki 165 izpodbijane sodbe, so ukrepi, ki jih je sporočilo Združeno kraljestvo, in s tem tudi izpodbijani akt, družbi Infront odvzeli možnost razpolaganja z njenimi pravicami televizijskega prenosa sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE za leti 2002 in 2006.
By virtue of the contested measure, Infront is prevented from granting those broadcasting rights exclusively to a pay television channel established
Na podlagi tega akta družba Infront svojih pravic prenosa ni mogla oddati komercialni
As the Court of First Instance noted, a Community measure is to be considered of direct concern to an individual where
Kot je spomnilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, lahko sporni akt Skupnosti posameznika neposredno zadeva le, če učinkuje neposredno na njegov pravni položaj in njegovo izvajanje nastopi samodejno ter izhaja že iz
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P in a Member State other than the United Kingdom and which wishes to broadcast the World Cup finals in the United Kingdom.
televiziji, ki ima sedež v državi članici, ki se razlikuje od Združenega kraljestva in želi zadevni dogodek oddajati v tej državi.
Infront is required to guarantee that those rights are also available to a broadcaster of free television covering a large proportion of the United Kingdom population.
Naložena ji je obveznost zagotovitve, da bodo te pravice na voljo tudi prosto dostopnemu izdajatelju, ki pokriva večji del britanskega prebivalstva.
I consider that these arguments of the Commission raise the issue of whether Infront had a legal interest in bringing the proceedings rather than that of the requirement that it must be directly concerned by the contested measure.
Menim, da gre pri teh navedbah Komisije bolj za to, ali je bila družba Infront procesno upravičena, ne pa toliko za predpostavko, da jo mora izpodbijani akt neposredno zadevati.
They amount to a submission that the annulment of the contested measure would bring Infront no advantage since there was, in any case, no potential purchaser outside the United Kingdom of the broadcasting rights it held.
Navedbe namreč pomenijo, da razveljavitev izpodbijanega akta za družbo Infront ne bi imela nikakr�ne prednosti, saj zunaj Združenega kraljestva bojda ni nobenega morebitnega kupca njenih pravic prenosa.
The contested measure’s impact on Infront’s situation is therefore reflected not only in purely economic loss, through a diminution in the market value of its broadcasting rights to the 2002 and 2006 FIFA World Cup finals.
Posledice izpodbijanega akta za položaj družbe Infront torej niso sestavljene le iz čiste gospodarske �kode, ki jo predstavlja znižanje tržne vrednosti njenih pravic prenosa sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE za leti 2002 in 2006.
The impact also takes the form of infringement of its right to property, by impeding its right to grant exclusive licences.
Kažejo se tudi v o�kodovanju njene lastninske pravice v smislu omejevanja njene pravice podeljevanja izključnih licenc.
The Court of First Instance therefore decided, in my opinion, correctly and in accordance with the caselaw that the contested measure affected Infront’s legal situation.
Menim torej, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje izpodbijani akt utemeljeno �telo za takega, ki ima v skladu s sodno prakso posledice za pravni položaj družbe Infront.
It is settled caselaw that, in addition to the conditions set out in Article 230 EC, an individual who challenges a Community measure must have a legal interest in bringing the proceedings, that is to say that he must have an interest in its annulment.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se poleg predpostavk iz člena 230 ES dodatno zahteva, da mora biti posameznik, ki izpodbija akt Skupnosti, procesno upravičen, kar pomeni, da mora imeti interes za razglasitev ničnosti akta. Pogoj za to je, da bo imelo pravno sredstvo na koncu korist za stranko, ki ga je vložila. 21
Admittedly, as the Commission points out, it is for the applicant to prove that he also satisfies this condition as to
Res je, kot navaja Komisija, da mora tožeča stranka dokazati tudi izpolnitev te predpostavke za dopustnost
21 — See, in particular, Case T-310/00 MCI v Commission [2004] ECR II-3253, paragraph 44 and the caselaw cited.
21 – Glej zlasti sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 28. septembra 2004 v zadevi MCI proti Komisiji (T-310/00, ZOdl., str. II-3253, točka 44 in navedena sodna praksa).
The Commission also argues, in the alternative, that the contested measure, in reality, had no effect on Infront because there was no television broadcaster established in a Member State other than the United Kingdom which would be liable to acquire the broadcasting rights to the FIFA World Cup finals in order to broadcast them in the United Kingdom.
Komisija podredno prav tako zatrjuje, da izpodbijani akt v resnici nima posledic za družbo Infront, ker v državi, različni od Združenega kraljestva, nima sedeža noben izdajatelj televizijskih programov, ki bi bil kandidat za nakup pravic prenosa sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE, da bi ga oddajal v tej državi članici.
In addition, the Court of First Instance reversed the burden of proof by indicating that it was for the Commission to prove those facts and it made an error of law in its determination of the effect of Article 3a of the Directive.
Poleg tega naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje obrnilo dokazno breme,
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM the admissibility of his action.
KOMISIJA PROTI INFRONT WM tožbe.
22Lack of an interest in bringing the proceedings is also an absolute bar to proceedings.
22Procesno upravičenje je poleg tega bistvena procesna predpostavka.
23In addi-
23 Prav tako
On the burden of proof, while, as we have seen, it is the individual seeking the annulment of a Community measure who has to establish his interest in bringing the proceedings, the fact remains that that requirement cannot relieve the Commission of the duty to adduce evidence of the matters of fact upon which it relies, like any other party to legal proceedings.
Glede dokaznega bremena je treba navesti, da nosi dokazno breme za obstoj procesnega upravičenja, kot je bilo pokazano, posameznik, ki izpodbija akt Skupnosti, vendar to Komisije, kot tudi vsake druge stranke sodnega postopka, ne odvezuje dokaznega bremena za razloge, na katere se ta sklicuje.
tion, the Commission is right in submitting that it cannot follow from Article 3a(3) of the Directive that, for each event designated by a Member State, there would necessarily have to be, in other Member States, television broadcasters liable to acquire the exclusive broadcasting rights to that event in the first State.
so upravičene navedbe Komisije, v skladu s katerimi iz člena 3a(3) ni mogoče sklepati, da bi moral za vsak dogodek, ki ga označi država članica, v drugi državi članici nujno obstajati izdajatelj televizijskega programa, ki bi želel kupiti izključne pravice prenosa tega dogodka v prvi državi članici.
It is clear from the system established by Article 3a of the Directive that a Member State which decides to use the power open to it under that provision and thus to establish a list of events which must be broadcast in its territory on free television accessible for the largest number is compulsorily required to notify that list to the Commission, regardless of whether or not the exclusive broadcasting rights to those events are liable to be acquired by television broadcasters established in another Member State.
Iz ureditve, ki jo vzpostavlja člen 3a Direktive, namreč izhaja, da mora država članica, ki se odloči izkoristiti možnost iz te določbe in izdati seznam dogodkov, ki jih mora na njenem ozemlju oddajati izdajatelj televizijskih programov, do katerega prosto dostopa večina prebivalcev, ta seznam obvezno sporočiti Komisiji, ne glede na to, ali izključne pravice prenosa teh dogodkov lahko kupijo izdajatelji televizijskih programov s sedežem v drugi državi članici.
In this case, the Commission submitted, in its objection to the admissibility of Infront’s action, that the television market in the United Kingdom is one of the most competitive in Europe and that 25% of television broadcasters are licenced in that Member State.
Komisija je v tej zadevi v okviru ugovora nedopustnosti tožbe družbe Infront zatrjevala, da je televizijski trg v Združenem kraljestvu eden najkonkurenčnej�ih v Evropi in da ima 25 % izdajateljev televizijskih programov v tej državi članici licenco.
It was on the basis of those statements that it claimed that it was difficult to envisage that Infront would assign its broadcasting rights to the FIFA World Cup finals to a broadcaster not established in the United Kingdom.
Na podlagi tega je navedla, da je težko predstavljivo, da bi družba Infront svoje pravice televizijskega prenosa za sklepni del svetovnega prvenstva FIFE oddala izdajatelju televizijskih programov, ki nima sedeža v Združenem kraljestvu.
None the less, I do not consider that the Court of First Instance reversed the burden of proof or misinterpreted Article 3a of the Directive.
Menim, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni obrnilo dokaznega bremena niti ni napačno razlagalo člena 3a Direktive.
By finding that those statements regarding the specificity of the television market in the United Kingdom could not be taken into account because they were unsupported, the Court of First Instance did not, in my view, reverse the burden of proving an interest in bringing proceedings.
Menim, da Sodi�če prve stopnje z ugotovitvijo, da zaradi pomanjkanja utemeljitve ni mogoče upo�tevati navedb o posebnostih televizijskega trga v Združenem kraljestvu, ni obrnilo dokaznega bremena za procesno upravičenje.
23 — MCI v Commission, paragraph 45.
23 – Zgoraj navedena sodba MCI proti Komisiji (točka 45).
The onus was all the more on the Commission to establish the truth of those statements as Infront disputed them and had, before the Court of First Instance, referred to several potential purchasers of its broadcasting rights established in Member States other than the United Kingdom.
Še več, Komisija mora dokazati pravilnost teh navedb, ki jih je prerekala družba Infront, pri čemer je pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje navedla več morebitnih kupcev pravic prenosa s sedežem v državah članicah, ki se razlikujejo od Združenega kraljestva.
of television broadcasters’ revenues, only broadcasters established in the territory of the Member State which has exercised the power made available by Article 3a of the Directive are really in a position to purchase those rights, the Commission casts doubt on the practical relevance of the mutual recognition procedure created by that provision.
te pravice dejansko sposobni odkupiti le izdajatelji s sedežem na ozemlju države članice, ki je uporabila možnost iz člena 3a Direktive, in zato dvomi o dejanski koristi postopka vzajemnega priznavanja, vzpostavljenega s to določbo.
Next, I do not consider that the ground of the judgment under appeal that the Commission’s argument deprives Article 3a of the Directive of all practical effect constitutes a misinterpretation of that provision.
Dalje v zvezi z obrazložitvijo izpodbijane sodbe, da navedbe Komisije členu 3a Direktive povsem jemljejo polni učinek, menim, da ni podana napačna razlaga te določbe.
Indeed, if only television broadcasters established in the Member State which has decided that certain designated sporting events must be broadcast to the entire population were liable to acquire the exclusive broadcasting rights to such events, the procedure laid down by Article 3a(3) of the Directive, which is intended to ensure compliance with the measures taken by that Member State by television broadcasters established in other Member States, would be deprived of relevance.
Če bi bili kandidati za nakup izključnih pravic prenosa le tisti izdajatelji televizijskih programov, ki imajo sedež v državi članici, ki je odločila, da je treba določene �portne dogodke oddajati za celotno javnost, bi bil postopek iz člena 3a(3) Direktive, katerega namen je, da izdajatelji televizijskih programov s sedežem na ozemlju drugih držav članic spo�tujejo ukrepe, ki jih je sprejela ta država članica, neuporaben.
That ground answers the Commission’s argument, summarised in paragraph 120 of the judgment under appeal, that in view of the fact that the income of television broadcasters is generated from advertising directed at the national audience, national licence fees or national subscription fees for pay television, only broadcasters reaching a high proportion of the national population and, consequently, established in the United Kingdom, were prepared to purchase the exclusive broadcasting rights held by Infront.
V tej obrazložitvi se namreč obravnavajo navedbe, povzete v točki 120 izpodbijane sodbe, v skladu s katero so ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da prihodki izdajateljev televizijskih programov izvirajo iz ogla�evanja, namenjenega domači javnosti, nacionalnih licenčnin ali domačih naročnin komercialnih televizij, izključne pravice prenosa od družbe Infront pripravljeni odkupiti le tisti izdajatelji, ki pokrivajo večji del domače javnosti in imajo zato sedež v Združenem kraljestvu.
By submitting thus that, in the light of the very high price of exclusive broadcasting rights to sporting events such as the FIFA World Cup finals and of the sources
Komisija zatrjuje, da so zaradi zelo visokih cen izključnih pravic prenosa �portnih dogodkov, kot je sklepni del svetovnega prvenstva FIFE, in ob upo�tevanju porekla sredstev izdajateljev televizijskih programov
The Court of First Instance therefore did not, as the Commission asserts in its appeal, say that Article 3a(3) of the Directive means that, for no matter what event designated by a Member State, there are necessarily television broadcasters established in other Member States who are liable to acquire the exclusive broadcasting rights to that event.
Sodi�če prve stopnje – v nasprotju s trditvami Komisije v pritožbi – ni razsodilo, da člen 3a(3) pomeni, da obstajajo za vsak dogodek, ki ga neka država članica označi, izdajatelji televizijskih programov s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, ki bi kupili izključne pravice prenosa za ta dogodek.
It was responding to the Commission’s argument that, for sporting events such as those for which Infront holds the television
Opredelilo se je do navedb Komisije, da pri tovrstnih �portnih dogodkih, za katere ima
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM broadcasting rights, there are no potential purchasers of those exclusive broadcasting rights other than the national television broadcasters.
KOMISIJA PROTI INFRONT WM družba Infront izključne pravice televizijskega prenosa, ni drugih morebitnih kupcev izključnih pravic prenosa od domačih izdajateljev televizijskih programov.
It follows that the Court of First Instance did not fail to demonstrate that the requirement that the contested measure actually affect Infront’s legal situation is satisfied.
Sodi�če prve stopnje posledično ni opustilo prikaza, da je bila predpostavka o posledicah izpodbijanega akta za pravni položaj družbe Infront izpolnjena.
In this case, the Court of First Instance correctly held, in paragraph 146 of the judgment under appeal, that the contested measure leaves the national authorities no discretion, because it requires them to produce the effects on Infront’s legal situation of which Infront complains.
V tej zadevi je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 146 izpodbijane sodbe upravičeno menilo, da izpodbijani akt svojim naslovnikom ne pu�ča nikakr�ne diskrecije, ker jih zavezuje k ustvarjanju posledic za pravni položaj družbe Infront, ki jih ta prereka.
As regards, secondly, the second condition under the caselaw, according to which the contested measure’s implementation must be purely automatic and result from Community rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules, I consider that the Court of First Instance likewise made no error of law in finding that that condition is also satisfied.
Drugič, kar zadeva drugo predpostavko, ki jo je oblikovala sodna praksa, namreč, da mora biti izvajanje izpodbijanega akta samodejno ter da mora ta izhajati že iz same zakonodaje Skupnosti, ne da bi bili za njegovo uporabo potrebni drugi izvedbeni ukrepi, menim, da Sodi�če prve stopnje prav tako ni napačno uporabilo prava, ko je presodilo, da je izpolnjena tudi ta predpostavka.
As we saw earlier, those effects consist of an impediment to its ability to dispose of the exclusive broadcasting rights to the FIFA World Cup finals to a television broadcaster established in a Member State other than the United Kingdom.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, te učinke namreč predstavlja omejitev možnosti družbe Infront, da pravice prenosa za sklepni del svetovnega prvenstva FIFE izključno prenese na izdajatelja televizijskih programov s sedežem v državi članici, ki ni Združeno kraljestvo.
Those effects do seem to be the direct consequence of the contested
Ti učinki vsekakor pomenijo neposredno posledico izpodbijanega akta, ker
24 — Dreyfus v Commission, paragraph 43 and the caselaw cited.25 — Ibidem, paragraph 44 and the caselaw cited.
24 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Dreyfus proti Komisiji (točka 43 in navedena sodna praksa).
Admittedly, as the Commission points out, Article 3a(3) of the Directive leaves the Member States a discretion in the implementation of the measures taken by a Member State and published by the Commission.
Pri preučitvi te predpostavke je treba namreč presoditi, ali je podana vzročna zveza
However, that discretion is not such as to call into question Infront’s standing to bring the proceedings.
25 – (točka 44 in navedena sodna praksa).
the Court of First Instance did not say that the contested measure is, as regards the rights holders, a bundle of individual decisions.
naveden v britanskih ukrepih. Trdi, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni navedlo, da je treba izpodbijani akt glede imetnikov pravic �teti za skupek posameznih odločb.
It also points out that that measure covers only television broadcasters, imposing obligations solely on them.
Po njenem mnenju je akt namenjen le izdajateljem televizijskih programov in le njim nalaga obveznost.
Rights holders suffer only economic consequences and the Court of First Instance, in earlier cases, held that that is not sufficient to differentiate an individual.
Imetniki pravic naj bi nosili le gospodarske posledice, Sodi�če prve stopnje pa naj bi v prej�njih zadevah odločilo, da to ni zadosten dejavnik za določitev posamičnosti.
26The Commission submits, in that regard, that the present case is different from those which gave rise to the judgments in Piraiki­Patraikiand Others v Commission, 27Extramet Industrie v Council 28and Codorniu v Council, 29the circumstances of which were special.
26Predložena zadeva naj bi se v zvezi s tem razlikovala od zadev, ki so privedle do sodb v zadevah Piraiki-Patraiki in drugi proti Komisiji, 27 Extramet Industrie proti Svetu 28in Codorniu proti Svetu, 29ter ustrezajo posebnim okoli�činam.
In view of those matters, I take the view that the Court of First Instance’s finding that Infront was directly concerned by the contested measure is not vitiated by an error of law and that the Commission’s appeal on that point should be dismissed as unfounded.
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega menim, da presoja Sodi�ča prve stopnje, v skladu s katero izpodbijani akt družbo Infront zadeva neposredno, ni pravno napačna in da je treba pritožbo Komisije v tem delu zavrniti kot neutemeljeno.
B — The finding that Infront was individually concerned
B – Presoja, da izpodbijani akt družbo Infront zadeva posamično
The Commission maintains that Infront’s situation is no different from that of other holders of exclusive rights to broadcast the various events designated by the United Kingdom.
Komisija trdi, da se okoli�čine družbe Infront ne razlikujejo od okoli�čin drugih imetnikov izključnih pravic prenosa za različne dogodke, ki jih je določilo Združeno kraljestvo.