natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
At the hearing, the Bundesverband contended that the question referred for a preliminary ruling is admissible, because the issue in the present case is not how to interpret national law in accordance with Direct ive 1999/44, but how the Directive itself is to be interpreted.
Na glavni obravnavi je Bundesverband izrazil stali�če, da je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje dopustno in da v konkretnem primeru ne gre za vpra�anje razlage nacionalne zakonodaje v skladu z Direktivo 1999/44, temveč za vpra�anje razlage te direktive.
In its written observations, the Bundesverband explains that Directive 1999/44 was intended to ensure a high level of consumer protection and that goods have to be replaced ‘free of charge’
V pisni vlogi Bundesverband opozarja, da je namen Direktive 1999/44 zagotoviti visoko raven varstva potro�nikov in da mora biti zamenjava blaga „neodplačna“ ter „brez znatnih neprijetnosti za potro�nika“, kar vključuje prepoved, od
12 — Case C-105/03 [2005] ECR I-5285, paragraph 47.13 — Case C-212/04 [2006] ECR I-6057, paragraph 110.
13 – Sodba z dne 4. julija 2006 v zadevi Adeneler (C-212/04, ZOdl., str. I-6057, točka 110).
At the oral hearing, Quelle submitted that the reference for a preliminary ruling was inadmissible, because in the present case the Bundesgerichtshof has no option but to interpret the relevant provisions of the BGB to the effect that it is permissible to claim compensation for use.
Quelle je na glavni obravnavi zavzel stali�če, da vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje ni dopustno, saj Bundesgerichtshof v tem primeru nima nobene druge možnosti, kakor da navedene določbe BGB razlaga tako, da je zahtevek za plačilo nadomestila za uporabo dopusten.
If the Court were to decide that Directive 1999/44 precludes the German legislation, the Bundesgerichtshof would be unable to abide by its ruling,
Če bo Sodi�če ES odločilo, da Direktiva 1999/44 nasprotuje navedeni nem�ki zakonodaji, Bundesgerichtshof te odločitve ne bo mogel upo�tevati, saj mu to preprečuje člen 20 Grundgesetz, v skladu s katerim so sodi�ča pri odločanju vezana
QUELLE and ‘without significant inconvenience to the consumer’, which implies a prohibition on requiring the consumer to pay compensation for the use of defective consumer goods.
QUELLE potro�nika zahtevati nadomestilo za uporabo blaga z napako.
In addition, the uncertainty surrounding the amount of compensation payable could deter consumers from asserting their rights under the Directive.
Meni tudi, da lahko dejstvo, da je vi�ina nadomestila nejasna, povzroči, da potro�nik ne uveljavi svojih pravic na podlagi Direktive 1999/44.
‘the goods brought into conformity free of charge’ and ‘to replace them … free of charge’ in Article 3(2) and (3) of Directive 1999/44 refer — according to the German Government — solely to the right to delivery free of charge (the act of delivering the replacement goods), and that is consistent with Article 3(4) of the Directive, which provides that the term ‘free of charge’ is to cover ‘particularly the cost of postage’.
dostavo, torej izvajanje zamenjave, kar naj bi bilo v skladu s členom 3(4) te direktive, ki pod pojem „neodplačno“ vključuje „zlasti stro�ke po�iljanja“.
The phrase ‘without any significant inconvenience to the consumer’, in the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Directive, simply means that the seller is not permitted to put any practical obstacles in the way of the purchaser as regards the exercise of his right to delivery of replacement goods.
Pojem „brez znatnih neprijetnosti za potro�nika“ iz člena 3(3), tretji pododstavek, Direktive 1999/44 vključuje le zahtevo, da prodajalec potro�niku ne povzroča praktičnih ovir pri uveljavljanju njegove pravice do zamenjave blaga.
The German Government regards the reference for a preliminary ruling as admissible, because it is necessary for the Court to interpret Directive 1999/44 in order to enable a decision to be reached in the main proceedings.
Nem�ka vlada zagovarja stali�če, da je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje dopustno, saj je razlaga Direktive 1999/44, ki jo bo podalo Sodi�če ES, nujna za re�itev spora v glavni stvari.
As to substance, the German Government maintains that the Directive does not preclude the German legislation at issue.
Z vsebinskega vidika meni, da Direktiva 1999/44 sporni nem�ki ureditvi ne nasprotuje.
In its written observations in support of that view, the German Government referred to four means of interpretation: literal, contextual, historical and teleological.
V pisnih stali�čih v podporo tega mnenja navaja �tiri vrste razlage: jezikovno, sistematično, zgodovinsko in teleolo�ko.
Construing Directive 1999/44 by reference to its context, the German Government predicates its interpretation on the assumption that the first clause of the 15th recital in the preamble to the Directive does not refer exclusively to cases in which the contract has been terminated, but lays down a general legal principle.
Pri sistematični razlagi Direktive 1999/44 nem�ka vlada izhaja iz trditve, da se prvi stavek njene petnajste uvodne izjave ne nana�a le na primere odstopa od pogodbe, temveč pomeni splo�no pravno načelo iz dveh razlogov.
The reasons for that assumption are twofold. First, the clear statement in the common position adopted by the Council on 24 September 1998 14that the Member States were free ‘to adopt rules on the reimbursement in the case of goods already used by the consumer as well as on the detailed arrangements of the rescission of the contract’ indicates that these two cases are to be considered separately.
Prvič, iz tega, da je v Skupnem stali�ču Sveta z dne 24. septembra 1998 14jasno opredeljeno, da imajo države članice možnost sprejeti predpise „o nadomestilu v primeru, ko je potro�nik že rabil blago, kakor tudi o podrobnej�ih določbah o odstopu od pogodbe“, izhaja, da je treba ti dve situaciji obravnavati ločeno.
Second, in the 15th recital, rescission of the contract is first mentioned, separately, in the second clause,
Drugič, odstop od pogodbe je v petnajsti uvodni izjavi omenjen �ele v drugem, ločenem stavku, medtem ko je pravica do znižanja nadomestila omenjena v
14 — Common Position (EC) No 51/98 adopted by the Council on 24 September 1998 with a view to adopting European Parliament and Council Directive 98/…/EC of … on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1998 C 333, p. 46).
14 – Skupno stali�če (ES) �t. 51/98 Sveta z dne 24. septembra 1998 glede sprejema Direktive 98/…/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o nekaterih vidikih prodaje potro�ni�kega blaga in z njim povezanih garancij (UL C 333, 30.10.1998, str.
As regards a literal interpretation, the German Government submits that Direct- ive 1999/44 is silent as to whether, in the case of replacement, the seller may require the purchaser to pay compensation for use of the defective goods.
V okviru jezikovne razlage nem�ka vlada zatrjuje, da Direktiva 1999/44 ne ureja vpra�anja, ali lahko prodajalec ob zamenjavi stvari od potro�nika zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo stvari z napako.
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-404/06 whereas the right to reduce the reimbursement to the consumer is mentioned in the first clause, which also suggests that reduction of the reimbursement is not restricted to cases in which the contract is rescinded.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI V. – ZADEVA C-404/06 prvem stavku, kar naj bi prav tako nakazovalo na to, da znižanje nadomestila ni mogoče le v primeru odstopa od pogodbe.
the consumer, in the event of cancellation of a credit agreement, not only to repay the amounts received under the contract but also to pay interest.
učinkovitost evropskega varstva potro�nikov ni ogrožena v primeru, ko mora potro�nik ob odstopu od kreditne pogodbe vrniti tako zneske, ki jih je prejel na podlagi te pogodbe, kakor tudi obresti.
The German Government maintains that the principle of effect- ive consumer protection does not preclude the claim to compensation for use, because payment of such compensation is a lesser burden than repayment of the loan in Schulte.
Meni, da zahteva za plačilo nadomestila za uporabo ne nasprotuje učinkovitemu varstvu potro�nikov, saj je plačilo tega nadomestila obveznost manj�ega obsega kot vrnitev posojila v zadevi Schulte.
Lastly, the German Government argues that the consumer should not profit from the fact that the goods have been replaced.
Poudarja �e, da potro�nik zaradi zamenjave blaga ne sme imeti nobenih prednosti.
By way of historical interpretation, the German Government refers to the proposal 15and the amended proposal 16for Direct- ive 1999/44, which show how the wording of Article 3(2) of the Directive developed, and that the Directive required only repair of goods — and not their replacement — to be free of charge.
V okviru zgodovinske razlage se nem�ka vlada sklicuje na predlog 15in spremenjen predlog Direktive 1999/44, 16ki prikazu- jeta razvoj formulacije člena 3(2) Direktive 1999/44 in ki naj bi dokazovala, da direktiva zahteva le neodplačnost popravila, ne pa tudi neodplačnost zamenjave blaga.
D — The Austrian Government, the Spanish Government and the Commission
D – Avstrijska in španska vlada ter Komisija
According to the German Government, a teleological interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 1999/44 indicates only that the consumer is not intended to bear any of the actual costs for bringing goods into conformity with the contract.
Po mnenju nem�ke vlade iz teleolo�ke razlage člena 3 Direktive 1999/44 izhaja le, da potro�nik ni zavezan nositi nobenih konkretnih stro�kov vzpostavitve skladnosti s pogodbo.
The German legislation is not at odds with the purpose of Directive 1999/44 — to complete the internal market and to protect consumers — because it is possible to exercise the right to delivery of replacement goods without bureaucratic problems or hindrance.
Nem�ka ureditev ne nasprotuje namenu Direktive 1999/44, to je dokončanju skupnega trga in varstvu potro�nikov, saj je zamenjava blaga mogoča brez težav in birokratskih ovir.
Moreover, the Court held in Schulte 17that the effectiveness of European consumer protection was not endangered by an obligation on
Nem�ka vlada navaja, da je Sodi�če v zadevi Schulte 17 odločilo, da
15 — Proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (COM(95) 0520 final — COD 96/0161, OJ 1996 C 307, p. 8).
15 – Predlog Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o prodaji potro�ni�kega blaga in garancijah (KOM/95/0520 konč. – COD 96/0161; UL C 307, 16.10.1996, str.
16 — Amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (COM(1998) 0217 final — COD 96/0161, OJ 1998 C 148, p. 12).
16 – Spremenjen predlog Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o prodaji potro�ni�kega blaga in garancijah (KOM(1998) 217 konč. – 96/0161(COD), UL C 148, 14.5.1998, str.
The Austrian Government maintains that claims for compensation for use can be lawful only in cases where the contract has been terminated, but not in cases where the goods have been replaced.
Avstrijska vlada meni, da je lahko zahteva za plačilo nadomestila za uporabo dopustna samo v primeru odstopa od pogodbe, v primeru zamenjave blaga pa ne.
If it were possible to require compensation for use, there would be an imbalance between the right to repair and the right to replacement, whereas those rights ought to be equally weighted, the consumer having a right to choose between them.
Možnost zahtevati nadomestilo za uporabo privede do nesorazmernosti med pravico do popravila in pravico do zamenjave, ki naj bi bili enakovredni, potro�nik pa naj bi imel pravico izbire.
In economic terms, there is no real choice if repair is free of charge but replacement entails additional costs in the form of the obligation to pay compensation for use.
Z ekonomskega vidika potro�nik nima pravice do izbire, če je popravilo neodplačno, zamenjava pa je povezana z dodatnimi stro�ki, torej s plačilom nadomestila za uporabo.
QUELLE the consumer fulfils his contractual obligations and that a claim for compensation for use would disrupt the balance between seller and consumer.
QUELLE varstva potro�nikov v pravu Skupnosti in opozarja na to, da je potro�nik s plačilom cene proizvoda izpolnil svoje obveznosti in da bi zahteva za plačilo nadomestila za uporabo poru�ila ravnotežje med prodajalcem in potro�nikom.
According to the Commission, the financial interests of the seller are sufficiently protected by the fact that he can rely on any lack of proportionality involved in replacing the goods.
Po mnenju Komisije so finančni interesi prodajalca v zadostni meri za�čiteni s tem, da se lahko sklicuje na nesorazmernost zamenjave blaga.
The Spanish Government argues that, as a matter of law, compensation for use is not one of the ‘costs’ referred to in Article 3(4) of Directive 1999/44, but it none the less entails economic consequences for the consumer and for that reason conflicts with the principle that replacement of defective goods is to be free of charge.
Španska vlada zatrjuje, da nadomestilo za uporabo v pravnem smislu sicer ne spada med „stro�ke“ v smislu člena 3(4) Direktive 1999/44, vendar ima za potro�nika ekonomske posledice, zato je v nasprotju z načelom neodplačnosti zamenjave.
Article 3(4) of Directive 1999/44 should be interpreted as meaning that the consumer is not obliged to pay costs which are directly linked to replacement of the goods.
Člen 3(4) Direktive 1999/44 je treba razlagati tako, da potro�nik ni zavezan nositi nobenih stro�kov, ki so neposredno povezani z zamenjavo blaga.
At the hearing, the Commission pointed out that the reference for a preliminary ruling is admissible, because, where there are doubts as to the compatibility of national law with a directive, the question whether the Member State has fulfilled its obligations under Community law is reviewed indirectly by means of the preliminary ruling proced- ure.
Na glavni obravnavi je Komisija pouda -rila, da je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje dopustno, saj se, v primeru dvomov o skladnosti nacionalnega prava z direktivo, v postopku predhodnega odločanja posredno preverja, ali država članica izpolnjuje svoje obveznosti po pravu Skupnosti.
According to the Commission, the admissibility of a reference for a preliminary ruling cannot be conditional upon whether national law can be interpreted so as to be consistent with Community law.
Meni, da možnost razlage nacionalnega prava v skladu s predpisom Skupnosti ne more biti pogoj za dopustnost vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
In its written observations, the Commission argues that the expression ‘free of charge’ cannot apply exclusively to the delivery of the goods.
Komisija v svojih pisnih stali�čih poudarja, da pojma „neodplačno“ ni mogoče omejiti zgolj na brezplačno dostavo blaga.
Article 3(1) of Directive 1999/44 provides that the seller is to be liable for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods are delivered and is therefore required, under Article 3(4) of the Directive, to pay all the necessary costs incurred in order to bring the goods into conformity with the contract.
Opozarja, da je prodajalec, v skladu s čle -nom 3(1) Direktive 1999/44, odgovoren za vsako neskladnost s pogodbo, ki obstaja v času dobave blaga, zato mora, v skladu s členom 3(4) te direktive, nositi vse stro�ke, potrebne za vzpostavitev te skladnosti.
The possibility of a reduction in reimbursement is mentioned in the 15th recital in the preamble to the Directive only in the context of rescission of the contract.
Znižanje nadomestila iz petnajste uvodne izjave Direktive 1999/44 se po mnenju Komisije nana�a zgolj na odstop od pogodbe.
The Commission underlines the importance of a high level of consumer protection in Community law, and points out that by paying the price
Komisija poudarja pomen visoke ravni
The national court is in essence asking whether Directive 1999/44 precludes national legislation under which, in the case of the replacement of defective goods, the seller may require the consumer to pay compensation for the use of those goods.
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali Direktiva 1999/44 nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, ki prodajalcu dopu�ča, da od kupca v primeru zamenjave blaga z napako zahteva plačilo nadomestila za uporabo tega blaga.
That right is conferred on the seller by Paragraph 439(4) of the BGB, which concerns subsequent performance, read in conjunction with Paragraph 346(1) of the BGB and the first subparagraph of Paragraph 346(2), which govern the effects of termination of the contract.
Ta pravica prodajalca izhaja iz čle -na 439(4) BGB, ki se nana�a na naknadno izpolnitev, v povezavi s členom 346(1) in (2), točka 1, BGB, ki ureja učinke odstopa od pogodbe.
Those provisions of the BGB thus transpose the rules which apply where a contract is terminated to cases where
Navedene določbe nem�kega civilnega zakonika torej prena�ajo ureditev,
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-404/06 goods are replaced.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI V. – ZADEVA C-404/06
This is the first time in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling that the Court has been called upon to interpret Directive 1999/44. 18
Nemalo avtorjev pa se je opredelilo tudi proti skladnosti nem�ke ureditve z Direktivo 1999/44. 22Poleg neskladnosti z direktivo ki velja v primeru odstopa od pogodbe, na zamenjavo blaga.
Directive 1999/44.
Sodi�če je v tem primeru pozvano, da Direktivo 1999/44 v okviru vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje razloži prvič.
22 Not only do they maintain that it is not in line with the Directive, they also criticise the one-sided nature of legislation which allows the seller to retain the profits included in the selling price. 23
18 opozarjajo na neuravnoteženost te ureditve, ki prodajalcu omogoča, da obdrži koristi, ki jih je pridobil iz prejete kupnine. 23
In German legal literature, the question whether the right to compensation for use is well founded has provoked wide academic discussion.
V nem�ki doktrini je vpra�anje utemeljenosti pravice do nadomestila za uporabo spodbudilo ob�irno akademsko razpravo.
In support of the national legislation, writers mostly refer to the parts of the explanatory memorandum which relate to the relevant provisions of the BGB, 19 on the basis of which they argue that the purchaser obtains economic benefits from the replacement of the goods.
V prid tej ureditvi avtorji najpogosteje navajajo zakonodajalčevo obrazložitev upo�tevnih določb BGB 19in iz nje izhajajoč argument, da ima kupec z zamenjavo ekonomske koristi.
20The proposition that this is compatible with Directive 1999/44 is most often justified by reference to the 15th recital in the preamble thereto and the argument that payment of compensation for use is not one of the necessary costs incurred for the purposes of bringing the goods into conformity with the contract within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Directive.
20 V prid skladnosti z Direktivo 1999/44 se najpogosteje sklicujejo na petnajsto uvodno izjavo te direktive in na argument, da plačilo nadomestila za uporabo ne spada med stro�ke, potrebne za vzpostavitev skladnosti s pogodbo v smislu člena 3(4) te direktive. 21
As regards admissibility, it should be noted — as the Commission correctly pointed out at the hearing — that the admissibility of a reference for a preliminary ruling cannot depend on whether at national level it is possible to interpret a provision of national law in such a way that it is compatible with a directive.
V zvezi z vpra�anjem dopustnosti je treba ugotoviti, kakor je pravilno poudarila Komisija na glavni obravnavi, da to, ali je na nacionalni ravni nacionalni predpis mogoče razlagati v skladu z direktivo, ne more biti pogoj za dopustnost vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
The principle prohibiting interpretation contra legem comes into play only where the national court is seeking
Načelo prepovedi razlage contra legem velja le v primeru, ko nacionalno sodi�če razlaga nacionalno pravo v skladu s pravom Skupnosti; v okviru vpra�anja za
18 — So far the Court has had to discuss Directive 1999/44 only in infringement proceedings.
18 – Sodi�če je Direktivo 1999/44 do zdaj obravnavalo zgolj v postopku za neizpolnitev obveznosti države.
See Case C-310/03 Commission v Luxembourg [2004] ECR I-1969 and Case C-312/03 Commission v Belgium [2004] ECR I-1975.
I-1969) in sodbo z istega dne v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji (C-312/03, Recueil, str. I-1975).
QUELLE and ‘seller’, Directive 1999/44 refers to ‘consumers’ and ‘sellers’ who sell consumer goods.
Direktiva 1999/44 pa o „potro�niku“ in „prodajalcu“, ki prodaja potro�ni�ko blago.
In the present case, it is possible to place the purchaser within the category covered by the term ‘consumers’ 25and the to interpret national law in conformity with Community law.
V konkretnem primeru je kupca mogoče umestiti pod „potro�nika“ 25in prodajalca pod „prodajalca“ 26v smislu Direktive predhodno odločanje pa ne moremo govoriti o prepovedi razlage contra legem.
The purpose of the interpretation given by way of a preliminary ruling is to ensure, through the interpretation of Community law, its correct and uniform application throughout the Member States.
Smisel razlage v postopku za predhodno odločanje je, da se z razlago prava Skupnosti zagotovi pravilna in enotna uporaba tega prava v vseh državah članicah. 24
24 seller within that covered by the term ‘sellers’ 26for the purposes of Directive 1999/44; moreover, the sale of the stove-set for private use constitutes a sale of ‘consumer goods’ 27 within the meaning of the Directive.
1999/44; poleg tega gre pri prodaji �tedilnika za osebno uporabo za prodajo „potro�ni�kega blaga“ 27 v smislu te direktive.
The references to Article 20 of the Grundgesetz concern solely German con -stitutional law; accordingly, that provision cannot as such affect the admissibility of a reference for a preliminary ruling.
Navedbe o členu 20 Grundgesetz se nana�ajo izključno na nem�ko ustavno pravo, zato ta predpis ne more sam po sebi vplivati na dopustnost predloga za predhodno odločanje.
Article 234 EC alone — not national law — lays down the conditions for the admissibility of a reference for a preliminary ruling.
Merila dopustnosti predloga za predhodno odločanje določa namreč le člen 234 ES, in ne nacionalno pravo.
Any other interpretation would mean that each Member State could decide for itself as to the applicability of Article 234 EC, and that could lead to a lack of uniformity in the application of Community law in the Member States.
Drugačna razlaga bi pomenila, da lahko vsaka država članica sama določa uporabo člena 234 ES, kar bi lahko privedlo do neenake uporabe prava Skupnosti v državah članicah.
The reference for a preliminary ruling is therefore admissible.
Vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje je zato dopustno.
The central problem in the present case is the interpretation of the expression ‘free of charge’, which appears in Article 3 of the Directive, and the related question of whether the requirement to ‘replace [goods] free of charge’ means that the seller must not
Jedro problema te zadeve je razlaga pojma „neodplačno“ iz člena 3 Direktive 1999/44 in s tem povezano vpra�anje, ali „neodplačna zamenjava“ pomeni, da
25 — Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 1999/44 defines a consumer as ‘any natural person who, in the contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are not related to his trade, business or profession’.
25 – Potro�nik po členu 1(2)(a) Direktive 1999/44 „pomeni vsako fizično osebo, ki na podlagi pogodb, zajetih s to direktivo, deluje v namene, ki ne sodijo v okvir njene poslovne ali poklicne dejavnosti“.
It must first be pointed out that whereas the BGB generally refers to ‘purchaser’
Predhodno je treba pojasniti, da BGB govori o „kupcu“ in „prodajalcu“ na splo�no,
26 — Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 1999/44 defines a seller as ‘any natural or legal person who, under a contract, sells consumer goods in the course of his trade, business or profession’.
26 – Prodajalec v skladu s členom 1(2)(c) Direktive 1999/44 „pomeni vsako fizično ali pravno osebo, ki na podlagi pogodbe prodaja potro�ni�ko blago v okviru svoje trgovske, poslovne ali poklicne dejavnosti“.