natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive must therefore be interpreted as meaning that, on the one hand, competing undertakings which have contractual rights vis-à-vis an undertaking having significant power in the relevant market and the rights of which are affected by a decision adopted by a regulatory authority to withdraw or amend specific obligations, and, on the other hand, undertakings which might wish to enter into contractual relations with an undertaking having significant market power and which are adversely affected, in their capacity as
Člen 4(1) okvirne direktive je treba razlagati tako, da se za podjetja, prizadeta z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa, ki je bila sprejeta v okviru postopka analize trga, zaradi česar imajo pravico do pritožbe zoper to odločbo, �tejejo konkurenčna podjetja, ki imajo s pogodbo določene pravice v razmerju do podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo na upo�tevnem trgu in jim odločba regulativnega organa o ukinitvi ali spremembi posebnih obveznosti posega v pravice, ter podjetja, ki bi želela vstopiti v pogodbeno razmerje s podjetjem s pomembno tržno
B — The second question that that person has a right. 27 However, the applicant argues, conversely, that a right to take part in non-adversarial administrative proceedings must also follow from the fact that Community law grants a right of appeal against decisions adopted in the course of that procedure.
B – Drugo vprašanje do sodelovanja v postopku analize trga izhaja iz dejstva, da pravo Skupnosti zagotavlja pravico do pritožbe zoper odločbe, sprejete v okviru tega postopka.
Tele2 thus argues, on the one hand, that if it is established that, in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection, Article 4 of the Framework Directive grants it a right of appeal against a decision of the regulatory authority to maintain, amend or withdraw specific obligations imposed on an undertaking having significant market power, then, by necessary implication, that right of appeal must be effective.
Družba Tele2 tako po eni strani trdi, da ima na podlagi člena 4 okvirne direktive v zvezi z načelom učinkovitega sodnega varstva pravico do pritožbe zoper odločbo regulativnega organa o ohranitvi, spremembi ali preklicu posebnih obveznosti, naloženih podjetju s pomembno tržno močjo, kar pomeni, da mora biti ta pravica do pritožbe učinkovita.
However, without being able to see the case-file, to take part in the administration of the evidence and to submit its observations in the market analysis proceedings, it would not be possible to prepare effectively an appeal against decisions of the regulatory authority adopted in the course of those proceedings.
Vendar pa naj brez možnosti vpogleda v spis, sodelovanja pri izvajanju dokazov in predstavitve svojih stali�č v postopku analize trga ne bi bilo mogoče pripraviti ustrezne pritožbe zoper odločbe regulativnega organa, sprejete v okviru tega postopka.
Moreover, the applicant submits, such a right to take part in the market analysis proceedings also follows from the right to due process.
Po drugi strani naj bi bila pravica do sodelovanja v postopku analize trga nujna z vidika zagotavljanja pravice do po�tenega sojenja.
If the answer to the first question is, as I propose, in the affirmative, it will be necessary to determine whether an undertaking such as the applicant in the main proceedings, in the case where it is entitled to a right of appeal under Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive must, for that reason, also be given the status of a party to the non-adver-sarial market analysis proceedings.
Če bi moral biti odgovor na prvo vpra�anje pritrdilen, kot predlagam, je treba ugotoviti, ali je treba podjetju, kot je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ima na podlagi člena 4(1) okvirne direktive pravico do pritožbe, priznati položaj stranke v postopku analize trga.
In order to answer the second question referred by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, it must first be borne in mind that the Framework Directive does not contain any express provision setting out who are the parties to the non-adversarial administrative proceedings referred to in Article 16.
Da bi odgovorili na drugo vpra�anje, ki ga je zastavilo Verwaltungsgerichtshof, je treba najprej spomniti, da v okvirni direktivi ni nobene določbe, ki bi izrecno določala, kdo so stranke v postopku analize trga na podlagi člena 16.
The terms of that provision give no indication that Tele2 must be entitled to participate, as a party, in the non-adversarial market analysis proceedings.
Besedilo te določbe v ničemer ne kaže na to, da bi morala imeti družba Tele2 pravico do sodelovanja kot stranka v predhodnem postopku analize trga.
Indeed, the third sentence of Article 16(3) merely provides that ‘parties affected’ must be notified in advance of the
Tretji stavek člena 16(3) namreč določa zgolj, da je treba „stranke, ki jih zadeva“ preklic obveznosti, o tem prej obvestiti v primernem roku.
27 — See point 22, above, and the case law cited therein.
27 – Glej točko 22 zgoraj in navedeno sodno prakso.
Community law does not require, a priori, that national procedural law must permit all competitors of an undertaking having significant market power to take part in a market analysis procedure under Article 16 of the Framework Directive.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION zahteva, da morajo imeti vsi konkurenti podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo na podlagi nacionalnega procesnega prava pravico do sodelovanja v postopku analize trga iz člena 16 okvirne direktive.
The national legislature may legitimately take the view that it is inappropriate to burden the preliminary procedure with what might turn out to be a very significant number of parties.
Zakonodajalec države članice lahko določi, da obremenjevanje posvetovalnega postopka s sodelovanjem �tevilnih strank ni primerno 29.
29 withdrawal of specific obligations. Admittedly, Article 6 of the Framework Directive, to which Article 16 refers, gives all ‘interested parties’ the opportunity to comment on the draft measures which regulatory authorities propose to adopt and Tele2 may, undoubtedly, be regarded as an interested party within the meaning of that provision.
strankam sicer zagotovljena možnost, da v primernem roku izrazijo svoje stali�če o osnutku ukrepov, in družbo Tele2 lahko brez dvoma �tejemo za zainteresirano stranko v smislu te določbe.
However, such a right to submit observations in the course of the consultation procedure cannot be confused with conferral of the status as a party to the market analysis proceedings, as sought by Tele2, which involves broader rights, in particular, the right to have sight of the file in the market analysis proceedings and to comment on the evidence.
Vendar pa pravice do predstavitve stali�č v okviru posvetovalnega postopka ne gre enačiti s položajem stranke v postopku analize trga, kot zahteva družba Tele2, ker bi to pomenilo �ir�i obseg pravic, med drugim pravico do vpogleda v spis postopka analize trga in do predstavitve stali�č glede dokazov.
In the absence of Community rules on the organisation and functioning of the non-adversarial market analysis proceedings provided for in Article 16 of the Framework Directive, there can be no doubt that it is essentially for the national procedural law of each Member State to regulate that matter.
Ker ni pravil Skupnosti, ki bi urejala organizacijo in potek postopka analize trga, ki je določen v členu 16 okvirne direktive, države članice v nacionalnem procesnem pravu same urejajo to področje 28.
28It is therefore for Austrian law to determine whether an undertaking such as the applicant in the main proceedings may be considered a party to the non-adversarial administrative proceedings in question.
Tako avstrijsko pravo določa, ali je podjetje, kot je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, lahko stranka v tem upravnem postopku.
If so, Austrian law will also have to determine whether that undertaking may be granted procedural rights in those non-adversarial proceedings
Če je to podano, avstrijsko pravo določa tudi, ali ima lahko podjetje poleg pravic, ki so izrecno določene v členu 16, tudi določene procesne pravice v okviru postopka in seveda pravice v okviru posvetovalnega postopka, ki so določene v členu 6. Pravo Skupnosti a priori ne
It must be emphasised, however, as the Court has held in the related context of the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from the direct effect of Community law, that, although it is for national law to regulate this matter, that national law must comply with the requirements of the general principles of Community law.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da mora, kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če v podobnem kontekstu glede procesnih pravil varovanja pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi neposrednega učinka prava Skupnosti, nacionalno pravo to področje urejati tako, da bo skladno z zahtevami, ki izhajajo iz splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti.
In particular, the detailed procedural rules may not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and they may not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights
Procesna pravila med drugim ne smejo biti manj ugodna od tistih, ki zadevajo podobna notranja pravna sredstva (načelo enakovrednosti) in ne smejo onemogočati oziroma pretirano ovirati izvajanja pravic, ki
29 — See recital 22 in the preamble to the Framework Directive, which stresses the importance of ‘timely’ procedures.
28 – Glej v tem smislu na primer sodbo z dne 14. decembra 1995 v zadevi Peterbroeck (C-312/93, Recueil, str. I-4599, točka 12 in navedena sodna praksa).
28 — See, for example, the judgment in Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck [1995] ECR I-4599, paragraph 12 and the case law cited therein.
29 – Glej dvaindvajseto uvodno izjavo okvirne direktive, ki poudarja pravočasnost postopkov.
30 considered. 32Account must therefore be taken, in particular, of the position of such an Austrian legal provision within the entire proceedings before the different national authorities, the manner in which those proceedings are conducted and their specific characteristics.
avstrijskega prava v tej luči je treba upo�tevati več dejavnikov, na katere je že opozorilo Sodi�če v svoji sodni praksi 32. Upo�tevati je treba �e posebej celoten postopek, njegov potek in posebnosti med različnimi nacionalnimi organi.
However, the applicant is invoking, precisely, the principle of effectiveness in this case in order to claim a right to take part in the non-adversarial market analysis proceedings.
Tožeča stranka se v svoji zahtevi po priznanju pravice do sodelovanja v postopku analize trga sklicuje prav na načelo učinkovitosti.
In is not, in fact, out of the question that the refusal to accord Tele2 the status of a party under Paragraph 37(5) of the TKG might significantly limit its right of appeal under Community law against decisions of the national regulatory authority adopted in the course of such proceedings.
Ni mogoče izključiti, da zavrnitev zahteve družbe Tele2 za priznanje položaja stranke na podlagi člena 37(5) TKG v postopku analize trga lahko znatno omeji njeno pravico do pravnega sredstva na podlagi prava Skupnosti zoper odločbo regulativnega organa, sprejeto v tem postopku.
Although it is, of course, for the national court to determine in those circumstances whether the right of appeal of an undertaking which, under Austrian law, does not have the status of a party to market analysis proceedings would on that ground be rendered purely formal, it does not seem, a priori, that the right which the applicant claims to participate, as a party, in the market analysis proceedings is essential to enable it to have an effective avenue of redress against decisions of the regulatory authority.
Čeprav bi moralo v teh okoli�činah predložitveno sodi�če določiti, ali je pravica podjetja do pritožbe, ki na podlagi avstrijskega prava nima položaja stranke v postopku analize trga, zato zgolj formalna pravica, se ne zdi, da je pravica do sodelovanja v postopku, ki jo zahteva tožeča stranka, a priori bistvenega pomena za zagotovitev učinkovitega pravnega varstva zoper odločbe regulativnega organa.
One may ask whether a specific provision, such as Paragraph 37(5) of the TKG, which does not, in this case, grant Tele2 the status of a party to the market analysis proceedings, renders impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the right of appeal against decisions adopted in the course of those non-adversarial proceedings.
Vpra�anje je, ali lahko posebna določba, kot je člen 37(5) TKG, ki družbi Tele2 ne priznava položaja stranke v postopku analize trga, onemogoča oziroma pretirano ovira izvajanje pravice do pritožbe zoper odločbe, sprejete v tem postopku 31.
National procedural law can ensure by a wide variety of means that the right of appeal against a decision adopted in the course of market analysis proceedings is effective.
Nacionalna procesna pravila lahko različno urejajo učinkovitost uveljavljanja pravice do pritožbe v okviru postopka analize trga.
First of all, and by way of illustration, I think that if an adequate statement of the reasons for the decision adopted by the regulatory authority is provided, it would be possible for
Po mojem mnenju, če se izrazim ilustrativno, bi bilo v primeru, ko bi bila odločba regulativnega organa ustrezno obrazložena, mogoče zagotoviti podjetju, kot je družba Tele2, ki bi razpolagalo z bistvenimi
See also the Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Mobistar, point 85.
I-3735, točka 60), z dne 4. decembra 2003 v zadevi Evans (C-63/01, Recueil, str.
32 — See Steffensen, paragraph 66, and Peterbroeck, paragraph 14; Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Van Schijndel and Van Veen [1995] ECR I-4705, paragraph 19; Levez, paragraph 44; and Evans, paragraph 46.
I-14447, točka 45) in z dne 17. junija 2004 v zadevi Recheio – Cash & Carry, (C-30/02, ZOdl., str. I-6051, točka 17). Glej tudi nedavno sodbo z dne 5. oktobra 2006 v združenih zadevah Nádasdi in Németh (C-290/05 in C-333/05, ZOdl., str. I-10115, točka 69). 32 – Glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Steffensen, točka 66, in Peterbroeck, točka 14, sodbo z dne 14. decembra 1995 v združenih zadevah Van Schijndel in Van Veen (C-430/93 in C-431/93, Recueil, str. I-4705, točka 19) ter zgoraj navedeni sodbi Levez, točka 44, in Evans, točka 46.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION reasoning behind it is based on the premiss that market analysis proceedings are in the nature of adversarial proceedings between the undertaking having significant market power and a competing undertaking such as the applicant.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION naravi postopek, kjer sta v sporu podjetje s pomembno tržno močjo in konkurenčno podjetje, kot je tožeča stranka.
That is clearly not the case in regard to administrative market analysis proceedings in the course of which decisions are adopted concerning the imposition, amendment or withdrawal of specific obligations in regard to undertakings having significant market power.
Vendar pa to očitno ne velja v primeru postopka analize trga, v okviru katerega so sprejete odločbe, ki podjetju s pomembno tržno močjo nalagajo, spreminjajo ali preklicujejo posebne obveznosti.
Such a link between the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and the principle of effective judicial protection was laid down in the judgment in Heylens and Others.
informacijami, učinkovito izvajanje njegove pravice do pravnega sredstva.
33 Following on from its judgment in Johnston, cited above, the Court stated in Heylens and Others that the existence of a judicial remedy against any decision of a national authority refusing the benefit of a fundamental right conferred by the Community legal order is essential in order to secure for the individual effective protection for his or her right.
Ta zveza med obveznostjo obrazložitve in načelom učinkovitega sodnega varstva je bila ugotovljena v sodbi Heylens in drugi 33.
34 The Court derived from that principle of effective judicial protection an obligation on the part of the competent national authorities to state the reasons on which their refusal is based either in the decision itself or in a subsequent communication made at the request of an interested person. 35
V prej omenjeni sodbi Johnston je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da je obstoj pravnega sredstva pred sodi�čem zoper odločbe nacionalnih organov, s katerimi so zavrnjene pravice, ki jih zagotavlja pravo Skupnosti, bistvenega pomena za zagotovitev učinkovitega varstva pravice posameznika 34.
36I consider that that argument cannot be accepted.
33 – Sodba z dne 15. oktobra 1987 v zadevi Heylens (222/86, Recueil, str. 4097).
33 — Case 222/86 [1987] ECR 4097.34 — Ibidem, paragraph 14.35 — Ibidem, paragraph 15.
34 – Prav tam, točka 14.35 – Prav tam, točka 15.
36 — In this connection Tele2 relies, in particular, on the judgments in Steffensen, in Joined Cases C-174/98 P and C-189/98 P Netherlands and van der Wal v Commission [2000] ECR I-1, and in Case T-42/96 Eyckeler and Malt v Commission [1998] ECR II-401, paragraphs 76 to 78.
36 – Tele2 se glede tega sklicuje na zgoraj navedeno sodbo Steffensen, sodbo z dne 11. januarja 2000 v združenih zadevah Nizozemska in van der Wal proti Komisiji (C-174/98 P in C-189/98 P, Recueil, str.
I accordingly take the view that Article 4 of the Framework Directive, considered in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection, of which it is an expression, should be interpreted as requiring a Member State to ensure that the national procedural rules governing the adoption of decisions in the course of market analysis proceedings do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights of appeal against such decisions adopted by the national regulatory authority.
Menim torej, da je treba člen 4 okvirne direktive v zvezi z načelom učinkovitega sodnega varstva razlagati tako, da državi članici nalaga, naj v procesnih pravilih nacionalnega prava, ki urejajo postopek analize trga, ne omejuje oziroma pretirano ovira uveljavljanja pravnih sredstev zoper odločbe nacionalnih regulativnih organov.
It is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of all the rules of Austrian procedural law, a provision, such as Paragraph 37(5) of the TKG, which does not permit an undertaking such as the applicant in the main proceedings to participate, as a party, in market analysis proceedings is of such a nature as to render impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the right of appeal conferred on such an undertaking by Article 4 of the Framework Directive.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora ob upo�tevanju vseh procesnih pravil avstrijskega prava ugotoviti, ali določba, kot je člen 37(5) TKG, na podlagi katere podjetje, kot je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, nima pravice do sodelovanja v postopku analize trga kot stranka, onemogoča oziroma pretirano ovira uveljavljanje pravice do pritožbe, ki jo takemu podjetju zagotavlja člen 4 okvirne direktive.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should reply as follows to the questions referred to it by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof:
V zvezi z zgoraj navedenimi ugotovitvami menim, da bi moralo Sodi�če na vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, ki jih je predložilo Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Avstrija) odgovoriti, kot sledi:
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION proceedings do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights of appeal against such decisions adopted by the national regulatory authority.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION uveljavljanja pravnih sredstev zoper odločbe nacionalnih regulativnih organov.
It is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of all the rules of Austrian procedural law, a provision such as Paragraph 37(5) of the Telekommunikationsgesetz (Law on Telecommunications), which does not permit an undertaking such as the applicant in the main proceedings to participate, as a party, in market analysis proceedings, is of such a nature as to render impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the right of appeal conferred on such an undertaking by Article 4 of the Framework Directive.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora ob upo�tevanju vseh procesnih pravil avstrijskega prava ugotoviti, ali določba, kot je člen 37(5) zakona o telekomunikacijah (Telekommunikationsgesetz), na podlagi katere podjetje, kot je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, nima pravice do sodelovanja v postopku analize trga kot stranka, enako onemogoča oziroma pretirano ovira uveljavljanje pravice do pritožbe, ki jo takemu podjetju zagotavlja člen 4 okvirne direktive.
2008 — CASE C-426/05
2008 – ZADEVA C-426/05
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 21. februarja 2008 *
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 December 2006, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 13. decembra 2006, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Belgian Government, by A. Hubert, acting as Agent,
– za belgijsko vlado A. Hubert, zastopnica,
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 4 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 4 in 16 Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/21/ES z dne 7. marca 2002 o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve (okvirna direktiva) (UL L 108, str.
33; ‘the Framework Directive’).
33, v nadaljevanju: okvirna direktiva).
The reference has been made in the context of a dispute between Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH, formerly Tele2 UTA Telecommunication GmbH, an Austrian undertaking providing electronic communications networks and services (‘Tele2’) and the Telekom-Control-Kommission (Telecommunications Control Commission; ‘the TCK’) by reason of the latter’s refusal to grant the former the status of a party in administrative market analysis proceedings.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med avstrijskim podjetjem Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH, nekdanjim Tele2 UTA Telecommunication GmbH, ki zagotavlja omrežja in storitve elektronskih komunikacij (v nadaljevanju: Tele2), in avstrijsko Telekom-Control-Kommission (komisija za nadzor telekomunikacij, v nadaljevanju: TCK) zaradi zavrnitve slednje, da bi Tele2 priznala položaj stranke v upravnem postopku za analizo trga.
Community law
Pravo Skupnosti
Pursuant to recital 12 in the preamble to the Framework Directive:
Dvanajsta uvodna izjava okvirne direktive določa:
‘Any party who is the subject of a decision by a national regulatory authority should have the right to appeal to a body that is independent of the parties involved.
„Vsaka stranka, za katero velja sklep nacionalnega regulativnega organa, mora imeti pravico do pritožbe pri organu, neodvisnem od udeleženih strank.
This body may be a court. …’
Ta organ je lahko sodi�če. […]“
Article 4 of the Framework Directive, entitled ‘Right of appeal’, states:
Člen 4 okvirne direktive z naslovom „Pravica do pritožbe“ določa:
This body, which may be a court, shall have the appropriate expertise available to it to enable it to carry out its functions.
Ta organ, ki je lahko sodi�če, mora imeti ustrezno strokovno znanje in izku�nje, da lahko izpolni svoje naloge.
Pending the outcome of any such appeal, the decision of the national regulatory authority shall stand, unless the appeal body decides otherwise.
Do končanja vsakega takega pritožbenega postopka velja odločba nacionalnega regulativnega organa, razen če pritožbeni organ ne odloči drugače.
Where the appeal body referred to in paragraph 1 is not judicial in character, written reasons for its decision shall always be given.
Kadar pritožbeni organ iz odstavka 1 nima sodnega značaja, se razlogi za njegovo odločitev vedno obrazložijo v pisni obliki.
Furthermore, in such a case, its decision shall be subject to review by a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 of the Treaty.’
Poleg tega njegovo odločitev v takem primeru preveri sodi�če v smislu člena 234 Pogodbe.“