natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its written observations the Italian Government submits that the statements in point 11 of the order for reference indicate that the question referred would be justified only in the event that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings were interpreted as limiting the duty to disclose personal data to the field of criminal investigations or the protection of public safety and national defence.
Italijanska vlada v pisnih stali�čih trdi, da navedbe iz točke 11 predložitvene odločbe kažejo na to, da bi bilo zastavljeno vpra�anje utemeljeno le v primeru, ko bi se nacionalna ureditev iz postopka v glavni stvari razlagala tako, da omejuje obveznost razkritja osebnih podatkov na področje kazenskopravnih preiskav ali na za�čito javne varnosti in nacionalno obrambo.
Since the national court does not exclude the possibility of that legislation being interpreted as not containing such a limitation, the question thus appears, according to the Italian Government, to be hypothetical, so that it is inadmissible.
Ker naj predložitveno sodi�če ne bi izključilo možnosti, da se ta ureditev razlaga tako, da ne vsebuje te omejitve, je torej to vpra�anje po mnenju te vlade hipotetično in naj ne bi bilo dopustno.
In this respect, it should be recalled that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts provided for by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court (Case C-217/05 Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio [2006] ECR I-11987, paragraph 16 and the caselaw cited).
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da v okviru sodelovanja med Sodi�čem in nacionalnimi sodi�či, kot ga določa člen 234 ES, le nacionalno sodi�če, pred katerim poteka spor in ki je pristojno za izdajo sodne odločbe, ob upo�tevanju posebnosti spora, ki poteka pred njim, presodi o nujnosti sprejetja predhodne odločbe za izdajo sodbe ter o pomembnosti vpra�anj, ki jih zastavi Sodi�ču (sodba z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, C-217/05, ZOdl., str. I-11987, točka 16 in navedena sodna praksa).
Where questions submitted by national courts concern the interpretation of a provision of Community law, the Court of Justice is thus bound, in principle, to give a ruling unless it is obvious that the request for a preliminary ruling is in reality designed to induce the Court to give a ruling by means of a fictitious dispute, or to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions, or that the interpretation of Community law requested bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, or that the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, paragraph 17).
Ker se vpra�anja, ki jih postavijo nacionalna sodi�ča, nana�ajo na razlago določbe prava Skupnosti, je torej Sodi�če načeloma zavezano, da odloči o vpra�anju, razen če je očitno, da predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v resnici stremi k izzvanju odločitve Sodi�ča s konstruiranim sporom ali k oblikovanju posvetovalnih mnenj o splo�nih ali hipotetičnih vpra�anjih, da zapro�ena razlaga prava Skupnosti ni v nikakr�ni povezavi z resničnostjo ali s predmetom spora ali da Sodi�če nima na voljo dejanskih ali pravnih elementov, ki so nujni za ustrezen odgovor na nanj naslovljena vpra�anja (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, točka 17).
Moreover, as regards the division of responsibilities under the cooperative arrangements established by Article 234 EC, the interpretation of provisions of national law is admittedly a matter for the national courts, not for the Court of Justice, and the Court has no jurisdiction, in proceedings brought on the basis of that article, to rule on the compatibility of national rules of law with Community law.
Sicer je v zvezi z razdelitvijo odgovornosti v okviru sistema sodelovanja, ki ga določa člen 234 ES, res, da so za razlago nacionalnih določb pristojna nacionalna sodi�ča in ne Sodi�če in da slednje ni pristojno, da bi se v okviru postopka, ki je bil uveden na podlagi tega člena, izreklo o združljivosti pravnih norm notranjega prava z določbami prava Skupnosti.
However, in the case of the present reference for a preliminary ruling, it is perfectly clear from the grounds of the order for reference as a whole that the national court considers that the interpretation of Article 12 of the LSSI depends on the compatibility of that provision with the relevant provisions of Community law, and hence on the interpretation of those provisions which it asks the Court to provide.
Vendar pa glede tega predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe iz obrazložitve navedene odločbe očitno izhaja, da predložitveno sodi�če meni, da je razlaga člena 12 LSSI odvisna od skladnosti tega predpisa z določbami prava Skupnosti, ki jih je treba upo�tevati, in torej od razlage navedenih določb, ki se zahteva od Sodi�ča.
Since the outcome of the main proceedings is thus linked to that interpretation, the question referred clearly does not appear hypothetical, so that the ground of inadmissibility put forward by the Italian Government cannot be accepted.
Ker je re�itev spora o glavni stvari vezana na to razlago, zastavljeno vpra�anje očitno ni hipotetično, tako da razloga nedopustnosti, ki ga navaja italijanska vlada, ni mogoče sprejeti.
The reference for a preliminary ruling is therefore admissible.
Zato je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe dopusten.
By its question the national court asks essentially whether Community law, in particular Directives 2000/31, 2001/29 and 2004/48, read also in the light of Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to lay down, in order to ensure effective protection of copyright, an obligation to communicate personal data in the context of civil proceedings.
Predložitveno sodi�če z vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje spra�uje, ali je treba pravo Skupnosti in zlasti direktive 2000/31, 2001/29 in 2004/48, brane tudi v povezavi s členoma 17 in 47 Listine, razlagati tako, da državam članicam nalagajo, da za zagotovitev učinkovitega varstva avtorske pravice določijo obveznost sporočanja osebnih podatkov v okviru civilnega postopka.
Preliminary observations
Uvodne ugotovitve
Even if, formally, the national court has limited its question to the interpretation of Directives 2000/31, 2001/29 and 2004/48 and the Charter, that circumstance does not prevent the Court from providing the national court with all the elements of interpretation of Community law which may be of use for deciding the case before it, whether or not that court has referred to them in the wording of its question (see Case C-392/05 Alevizos [2007] ECR I-3505, paragraph 64 and the caselaw cited).
Čeprav je predložitveno sodi�če svoje vpra�anje formalno omejilo na razlago direk- tiv 2000/31, 2001/29 in 2004/48 ter Listine, ta okoli�čina ne more biti ovira za to, da bi Sodi�če podalo vse elemente razlage prava Skupnosti, ki bi bili lahko koristni za presojo v zadevi, ki mu je bila predložena, ne glede na to, ali se predložitveno sodi�če v svojem vpra�anju sklicuje na to (glej sodbo z dne 26. aprila 2007 v zadevi Alevizos, C-392/05, ZOdl., str. I-3505, točka 64 in navedena sodna praksa).
It should be observed to begin with that the intention of the provisions of Community law thus referred to in the question is that the Member States should ensure, especially in the information society, effective protection of industrial property, in particular copyright, which Promusicae claims in the main proceedings.
Takoj je treba omeniti, da je namen določb prava Skupnosti, kot so navedene v zastavljenem vpra�anju, da države članice zagotovijo, zlasti v informacijski družbi, učinkovito varstvo intelektualne lastnine in �e zlasti avtorske pravice, kar zahteva Promusicae v postopku v glavni stvari.
The national court proceeds, however, from the premiss that the Community law obligations required by that protection may be blocked, in national law, by the provisions of Article 12 of the LSSI.
Vendar pa se predložitveno sodi�če opira na predpostavko, v skladu s katero so obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti, ki zahteva to varstvo, lahko v okviru nacionalnega prava oslabljene z določbami člena 12 LSSI.
While that law, in 2002, transposed the provisions of Directive 2000/31 into domestic law, it is common ground that Article 12 of the law is intended to implement the rules for the protection of private life, which is also required by Community law under Directives 95/46 and 2002/58, the latter of which concerns the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, which is the sector at issue in the main proceedings.
Čeprav je ta zakon leta 2002 v notranje pravo prenesel določbe Direktive 2000/31, ni sporno, da je namen člena 12 tega zakona izvajanje pravil varstva zasebnega življenja, kar je naloženo tudi s pravom Skupnosti na podlagi direktiv 95/46 in 2002/58; zadnjenavedena direktiva je direktiva o obdelavi osebnih podatkov in varstvu zasebnosti na področju elektronskih komunikacij, ki je obravnavano v postopku v glavni stvari.
It is not disputed that the communication sought by Promusicae of the names and addresses of certain users of KaZaA involves the making available of personal data, that is, information relating to identified or identifiable natural persons, in accordance with the definition in Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46 (see, to that effect, Case C-101/01 Lindqvist [2003] ECR I-12971, paragraph 24).
Prav tako ni sporno, da sporočanje imen in naslovov nekaterih uporabnikov programa KaZaA, za katero je zaprosilo Promusicae, v postopku v glavni stvari vključuje uporabo osebnih podatkov, to je podatkov o določenih ali določljivih fizičnih osebah, v skladu z opredelitvijo iz člena 2(a) Direktive 95/46 (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 6. novembra 2003 v zadevi Lindqvist, C-101/01, ZOdl., str.
That communication of information which, as Promusicae submits and Telefónica does not contest, is stored by Telefónica constitutes the processing of personal data within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2 of Directive 2002/58, read in conjunction with Article 2(b) of Directive 95/46.
I-12971, točka 24). To sporočanje informacij, ki so po mnenju Promusicae shranjene pri Telefónica – čemur slednja ne ugovarja –, pomeni obdelavo osebnih podatkov v skladu s členom 2, prvi odstavek, Direktive 2002/58, v povezavi s členom 2(b) Direktive 95/46.
It must therefore be accepted that that communication falls within the scope of Directive 2002/58, although the compliance of the data storage itself with the requirements of that directive is not at issue in the main proceedings.
Priznati je torej treba, da navedeno sporočanje spada na področje uporabe Direktive 2002/58, pri čemer je treba poudariti, da skladnost gostovanja z zahtevami zadnjenavedene direktive ni predmet obravnave v sporu o glavni stvari.
In those circumstances, it should first be ascertained whether Directive 2002/58 precludes the Member States from laying down, with a view to ensuring effective protection of copyright, an obligation to communicate personal data which will enable the copyright holder to bring civil proceedings based on the existence of that right.
V teh okoli�činah je treba najprej preveriti, ali Direktiva 2002/58 izključuje možnost, da države članice za zagotovitev učinkovitega varstva avtorske pravice določijo obveznost sporočanja osebnih podatkov, ki bo imetnikom avtorske pravice omogočila, da sprožijo civilni sodni postopek na podlagi obstoja te pravice.
If that is not the case, it will then have to be ascertained whether it follows directly from the three directives expressly mentioned by the national court that the Member States are required to lay down such an obligation.
V primeru nikalnega odgovora bi bilo nato treba preveriti, ali iz treh direktiv, ki jih je izrecno navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, neposredno izhaja, da so države članice dolžne določiti tako obveznost.
Finally, if that is not the case either, in order to provide the national court with an answer of use to it, it will have to be examined, starting from the national court’s reference to the Charter, whether in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings other rules of Community law might require a different reading of those three directives.
Končno, če bi bil izid drugega preverjanja prav tako negativen, bi bilo treba za ustrezen odgovor predložitvenemu sodi�ču preveriti – na podlagi sklicevanj predložitvenega sodi�ča na Listino –, ali bi v položaju, kakr�en je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, druga pravila prava Skupnosti lahko zahtevala drugačno razumevanje treh navedenih direktiv.
Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/58 provides that Member States must ensure the confidentiality of communications by means of a public communications network and publicly available electronic communications services, and of the related traffic data, and must inter alia prohibit, in principle, the storage of that data by persons other than users, without the consent of the users concerned.
Predpisi člena 5(1) Direktive 2002/58 določajo, da morajo države članice zagotoviti zaupnost sporočil in s tem povezanih podatkov o prometu, ki se po�iljajo po javnem komunikacijskem omrežju in javno razpoložljivih elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev. Zlasti morajo prepovedati vsem osebam, razen uporabnikom, shranjevanje teh podatkov brez privolitve zadevnih uporabnikov.
The only exceptions relate to persons lawfully authorised in accordance with Article 15(1) of that directive and the technical storage necessary for conveyance of a communication.
Izjeme veljajo za osebe, ki jim je to zakonsko dovoljeno v skladu s členom 15(1) te direktive, in za tehnično shranjevanje, ki je potrebno za prenos sporočila.
In addition, as regards traffic data, Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/58 provides that stored traffic data must be erased or made anonymous when it is no longer needed for the purpose of the transmission of a communication without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of that article and Article 15(1) of the directive.
Poleg tega glede podatkov o prometu člen 6(1) Direktive 2002/58 določa, da morajo biti shranjeni podatki izbrisani ali predelani v anonimne, potem ko niso več potrebni za namen prenosa sporočila, kar ne vpliva na odstavke 2, 3 in 5 tega člena in člena 15(1) te direktive.
With respect, first, to paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of Article 6, which relate to the processing of traffic data in accordance with the requirements of billing and marketing ser -vices and the provision of value added services, those provisions do not concern the communication of that data to persons other than those acting under the authority of the providers of public communications networks and publicly available electronic communications services.
Prvič, v zvezi z odstavki (2), (3) in (5) navedenega člena 6, ki določa obdelavo podatkov o prometu glede na zahteve, vezane na dejavnosti zaračunavanja storitev, njihovega trženja ali opravljanja storitev z dodano vrednostjo, te določbe ne zadevajo sporočanja teh podatkov drugim osebam kot tistim, ki delujejo pod nadzorom ponudnikov javnih komunikacijskih omrežij in javno razpoložljivih elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev.
As to the provisions of Article 6(6) of Directive 2002/58, they do not relate to disputes other than those between suppliers and users concerning the grounds for storing data in connection with the activities referred to in the other provisions of that article.
Določbe člena 6(6) Direktive 2002/58 zadevajo zgolj spore med ponudniki in uporabniki, ki se nana�ajo na razloge za gostovanje v zvezi z dejavnostmi iz drugih določb tega člena.
Since Article 6(6) thus clearly does not concern a situation such as that of Promusicae in the main proceedings, it cannot be taken into account in assessing that situation.
Ker se določbe navedenega člena torej ne nana�ajo na položaj, v katerem je Promusicae v okviru postopka v glavni stvari, se ne upo�tevajo pri presoji tega položaja.
With respect, second, to Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, it should be recalled that under that provision the Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope inter alia of the obligation to ensure the confidentiality of traffic data, where such a restriction constitutes a necessary, appropriate and proportionate measure within a democratic society to safeguard national security (i.e. State security), defence, public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communications system, as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46.
Drugič, glede člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 je treba poudariti, da v skladu s to določbo države članice lahko sprejmejo zakonske ukrepe, s katerimi omejijo obseg zlasti obveznosti zagotavljanja zaupnosti podatkov o prometu, kadar tak�na omejitev pomeni potreben, primeren in ustrezen ukrep znotraj demokratične družbe za za�čito nacionalne varnosti (to je državne varnosti), obrambe, javne varnosti ali za zagotovitev preprečevanja, preiskovanja, odkrivanja in pregona kriminalnih dejanj ali nedovoljene uporabe elektronskega komunikacijskega sistema iz člena 13(1) Direktive 95/46/ES.
Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 thus gives Member States the possibility of providing for exceptions to the obligation of principle, imposed on them by Article 5 of that directive, to ensure the confidentiality of personal data.
Države članice imajo torej na podlagi člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 možnost, da določijo izjeme od splo�ne obveznosti, da zagotovijo zaupnost osebnih podatkov, ki jo imajo v skladu s členom 5 te direktive.
However, none of these exceptions appears to relate to situations that call for the bringing of civil proceedings.
Nobena od teh izjem pa se ne nana�a na položaje, ki bi zahtevali uporabo civilnih sodnih postopkov.
They concern, first, national security, defence and public security, which constitute activities of the State or of State authorities unrelated to the fields of activity of individuals (see, to that effect, Lindqvist, paragraph 43), and, second, the prosecution of criminal offences.
Nana�ajo se namreč, po eni strani, na za�čito državne varnosti, obrambe in javne varnosti, ki so dejavnosti, značilne za države ali državne organe in tuje organe na področjih dejavnosti posameznikov (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Lindqvist, točka 43), in po drugi strani na pregon kriminalnih dejanj.
As regards the exception relating to unauthorised use of the electronic communications system, this appears to concern use which calls into question the actual integrity or security of the system, such as the cases referred to in Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/58 of the interception or surveillance of communications without the consent of the users concerned.
Zdi se, da se izjema o nedovoljeni uporabi elektronskega komunikacijskega sistema nana�a na uporabo, ki postavlja pod vpra�aj celovitost ali samo varnost tega sistema, kot so primeri prestrezanja ali nadziranja komunikacij brez privolitve zadevnih uporabnikov iz člena 5(1) Direktive 2002/58.
Such use, which, under that article, makes it necessary for the Member States to intervene, also does not relate to situations that may give rise to civil proceedings.
Tovrstna uporaba, ki na podlagi navedenega člena zahteva poseg držav članic, se ravno tako ne nana�a na položaje, ki lahko pripeljejo do civilnih sodnih postopkov.
It is clear, however, that Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 ends the list of the above exceptions with an express reference to Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46.
Vendar pa je treba ugotoviti, da se na�tevanje zgoraj navedenih izjem člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 zaključi z izključnim sklicevanjem na člen 13(1) Direktive 95/46.
That provision also authorises the Member States to adopt legislative measures to restrict the obligation of confidentiality of personal data where that restriction is necessary inter alia for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Vendar ta določba poobla�ča tudi države članice, da sprejmejo ukrepe, ki omejujejo obveznost zaupnosti osebnih podatkov, kadar je ta omejitev potrebna za varstvo pravic in svobo�čin drugih.
As they do not specify the rights and freedoms concerned, those provisions of Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 must be interpreted as expressing the Community legislature’s intention not to exclude from their scope the protection of the right to property or situations in which authors seek to obtain that protection in civil proceedings.
Ker ne določajo, za katere pravice in svobo�čine gre, je treba navedene določbe člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 razlagati tako, da izražajo voljo normodajalca Skupnosti, da se iz njihovega področja uporabe ne izključijo niti varstvo lastninske pravice niti položaji, v katerih avtorji sku�ajo doseči to varstvo v okviru civilnega sodnega postopka.
The conclusion must therefore be that Directive 2002/58 does not preclude the possibility for the Member States of laying down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da Direktiva 2002/58 ne izključuje možnosti za države članice, da določijo obveznost razkritja osebnih podatkov v okviru civilnega sodnega postopka.
However, the wording of Article 15(1) of that directive cannot be interpreted as compelling the Member States, in the situations it sets out, to lay down such an obligation.
Člena 15(1) te direktive pa v položajih, ki so v njem določeni, ni možno razlagati kot zavezujočega za države članice, da določijo tako obveznost.
It must therefore be ascertained whether the three directives mentioned by the national court require those States to lay down that obligation in order to ensure the effective protection of copyright.
Zato je treba preveriti, ali tri direktive, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, nalagajo tem državam, da za zagotovitev učinkovitega varstva avtorske pravice določijo to obveznost.
The three directives mentioned by the national court
Tri direktive, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodišče
It should first be noted that, as pointed out in paragraph 43 above, the purpose of the directives mentioned by the national court is that the Member States should ensure, especially in the information society, effective protection of industrial property, in particular copyright.
Glede tega je treba najprej poudariti, da, kot je bilo navedeno v točki 43 te sodbe, sku�ajo direktive, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, doseči, da države članice zlasti v informacijski družbi zagotovijo učinkovito varstvo intelektualne lastnine in �e zlasti avtorske pravice.
However, it follows from Article 1(5)(b) of Directive 2000/31, Article 9 of Directive 2001/29 and Article 8(3)(e) of Directive 2004/48 that such protection cannot affect the requirements of the protection of personal data.
Vendar pa iz člena 1(5)(b) Direktive 2000/31, člena 9 Direktive 2001/29 in člena 8(3)(e) Direktive 2004/48 izhaja, da tako varstvo ne more prizadeti zahtev, povezanih z varstvom osebnih podatkov.