natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The regulation supplements those conventions by providing immediate compensation for passengers faced with a flight cancellation.
Opozarja, da v skladu z Var�avsko in Montrealsko konvencijo prevoz, ki ga drug za drugim opravi več letalskih prevoznikov, �teje za en mednarodni prevoz, kadar pogodbeni stranki nanj gledata kot na eno opravilo in sta oba dela povratnega leta rezervirana istočasno.
The protection it affords would lag behind that of the conventions if outward and return
Uredba ti konvenciji dopolnjuje tako, da potnikom, ki jim je bil odpovedan let, zagotavlja takoj�njo od�kodnino.
Furthermore, the outward and return flights of a round trip are usually booked as a single transaction and the passenger receives one ticket.
Presoja sta leta tja in nazaj kot dela povratnega leta ponavadi rezervirana kot ena transakcija in potnik prejme eno letalsko karto.
As I have indicated, 15the word ‘flight’ does not appear in most language versions of Article 3(1)(a).
Kakor sem navedla 15, se beseda „let“ v večini jezikovnih različic člena 3(1)(a) ne pojavlja.
I shall therefore reformulate the question.
Zato bom preoblikovala vpra�anje.
The referring court essentially wishes to know whether persons travelling on a return flight from a third country to a Member State are ‘passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004, at any rate where the outward and return flights were booked at the same time.
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu zanima, ali so osebe, ki letijo nazaj iz tretje države članice v državo članico „potniki, ki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice“ v smislu člena 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 vedno, kadar sta bila leta tja in nazaj rezervirana istočasno.
If so, the regulation applies and such passengers will prima facie be entitled to compensation if the return flight is cancelled.
Če je tako, se bo uredba uporabljala in taki potniki bodo prima facie upravičeni do od�kodnine, če bo let nazaj odpovedan.
Passengers would be denied protection outside the Community, where they needed it most.
Potnikom bi se odreklo varstvo zunaj Skupnosti, kjer ga najbolj potrebujejo.
The Warsaw and Montreal Conventions regard a round trip as a flight from A to B and back.
Var�avska in Montrealska konvencija �tejeta povratni let kot let iz A v B in nazaj.
If the Community legislator had wanted to deviate from those conventions by reducing the notion of ‘flight’ to a part of a journey, it would have made its intentions clear.
Če bi se normodajalec Skupnosti želel izogniti tem konvencijam, s tem da bi skrčil pojem „let“ le na del potovanja, bi svoj namen jasno pokazal.
Since the word ‘flight’ is absent from most language versions of Article 3(1)(a), a contextual analysis of the use of ‘flight’ in other provisions of the regulation is not called for.
Ker se besede „let“ v večini jezikovnih različic člena 3(1)(a) ne uporablja, ni treba analizirati sobesedila uporabe besede „let“ v drugih določbah.
All the other parties submitting written observations agree that outward and return flights do not constitute a single ‘flight’ under Regulation No 261/2004.
Vse druge stranke, ki so predložile pisna stali�ča, se strinjajo, da leta tja in nazaj ne pomenita enega „leta“ v smislu Uredbe �t. 261/2004.
The natural meaning of the expressions ‘embark on a flight at airports …’ (in
Običajni pomen izrazov „vkrcanje na let na letali�čih […]“ (v nem�ki različici)
15 — Points 6 to 8 above.
15 – Točke od 6 do 8 zgoraj.
Even if he flies with a Community carrier, he will not be flying to ‘an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies’.
EMIRATES AIRLINES z letalskim prevoznikom Skupnosti, ne bi letel na „letali�če na ozemlju države članice, za katero se Pogodba uporablja“.
the German version) and ‘departing from an airport’ (in other versions) in Article 3(1) is that both refer to a particular one-way journey by air.
in „odhod z letali�ča“ (v drugih različicah) člena 3(1) je, da se oba nana�ata na natančno določeno enosmerno potovanje z letalom.
If one is considering the return flight of a round trip, the departure of the initial outward flight is history.
Če gledamo let nazaj povratnega leta, potem je odhod prvotnega leta tja že preteklost.
Someone boarding a return flight from Singapore to Rome is not normally described as ‘embarking on a flight’ from Rome.
Za nekoga, ki se vkrca na let nazaj iz Singapurja v Rim, se ponavadi ne reče, da „se vkrca na let“ iz Rima.
Nor are they ‘departing’ from Rome.
Niti ne, da „odhaja“ iz Rima.
It would have been possible to draft the legislation so that it was weighted in favour of affording the fullest protection to passengers starting their travels in the European Union, at the expense of those starting in a third country.
Mogoče bi bilo zakonodajo oblikovati tako, da bi dajala prednost zagotavljanju popolnega varstva potnikov, ki svoje potovanje začnejo v Evropski uniji, na stro�ke tistih, ki začnejo potovanje v tretji državi.
That was not, however, the legislator’s choice.
Vendar pa se normodajalec ni tako odločil.
If the Community legislator had intended the phrases used in the different versions of Article 3(1) to cover the return flight, it would have been easy enough to draft the provision differently.
Če bi normodajalec Skupnosti želel, da bi stavki, uporabljeni v različnih različicah člena 3(1) vključevali let nazaj, bi bilo dovolj enostavno, če bi določbo napisal drugače.
A subparagraph could have explained that the entire round trip — there and back — is to be assessed by reference to the point of departure of the flight that is its first component.
V pododstavku bi bilo lahko razloženo, da se celoten povratni let – tja in nazaj – presoja glede na odhodni kraj leta, ki je njegov prvi del.
Rather, the plain meaning of the text is that it covers all outbound flights leaving ‘an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies’ (Article 3(1)(a)) but covers inbound flights only where they are operated by a Community carrier (Article 3(1)(b)).
Prej bi bil pomen besedila tak, da bi se nana�al na vse odhodne lete iz „letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, za katero se Pogodba uporablja“ (člen 3(1)(a)), na povratne lete pa le tedaj, kadar jih zagotavlja letalski prevoznik Skupnosti (člen 3(1)(b)).
The purpose of the regulation
Namen Uredbe
The construction of the actual Article 3(1) advanced by Dr Schenkel requires one (i) to treat a round trip as a single flight; (ii) to treat that flight as being ‘to’ the point of original departure.
Razlaga dejanskega člena 3(1), ki jo zagovarja D. Schenkel, predlaga, da bi (i) se povratni let �tel za en sam let; (ii) bi se ta let �tel za točko prvotnega odhoda.
The effect, in terms of the protection afforded to a passenger, appears to be as follows.
Glede varstva, danega potniku, bi bil učinek sledeč.
A passenger starting his round trip from a Community airport (to a third country and back) will be covered on both outbound and inbound legs, irrespective of carrier.
Potnik, ki svoj povratni let začne na letali�ču Skupnosti (v tretjo državo in nazaj), bi bil krit tako na odhodu kot na povratku potovanja ne glede na letalskega prevoznika.
However, a passenger starting his round trip in a third country (to a
Vendar bi bil potnik, ki bi svoj povratni let začel v tretji državi (na letali�če Skupnosti in nazaj) brez varstva v okviru Uredbe. Čeprav bi letel
It is equally clear that Article 3(1) limits the scope of that protection.
Prav tako je jasno, da člen 3(1) omejuje obseg tega varstva.
All passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State are covered.
Nana�a se na vse potnike, ki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice.
Passengers departing from an airport in a third country to travel to an airport in a Member State are covered only if they are flying on a Community carrier.
Za potnike, ki odhajajo z letali�ča v tretji državi članici na pot na letali�če v državi članici, velja le, če letijo z letalskim prevoznikom Skupnosti. 16
16 outstanding issues’ concerned, precisely, the scope of the regulation in relation to flights from third countries, as now defined by Article 3(1)(b). 18A lengthy footnote to the text of that subparagraph (by then identical to the text finally adopted) shows that certain Member States favoured extending further the protection offered to passengers boarding a flight to a destination within the Community at an airport in a third country, whilst others opposed it; and that possible problems of extra-territoriality, unenforceability and discrimination between passengers were (variously) canvassed. 19
Obsežna opomba k besedilu tega podostavka (ki je bil takrat enak končnemu sprejetemu besedilu) kaže, da so nekatere države članice zagovarjale nadaljnje �irjenje varstva, nudenega potnikom, ki se na letali�ču tretje države vkrcajo na let z namembnim krajem v Skupnosti, medtem ko so druge temu nasprotovale, ter da se je o morebitnih problemih ekstrateritorialnosti, neizvr�ljivosti in diskriminacije med potniki (različno) razpravljalo. 19
The travaux préparatoires show that the proper scope of the proposed new regulation in relation to flights from third country airports to the Community was the subject of specific consideration.
Travaux préparatoires kažejo, da je bil obseg predlagane nove uredbe glede letov z letali�č tretjih držav v Skupnost predmet posebnih razpravljanj.
Under Article 3(1) of the Commission’s original Proposal, 17passengers departing from a third country to a Member State were to be covered if they had a contract with a Community carrier or with a tour operator for a package offered for sale in the territory of the Community.
V skladu s členom 3(1) izvirnega Predloga Komisije 17se ta uporablja za potnike, ki odhajajo iz tretje države v državo članico, če imajo pogodbo z letalskim prevoznikov Skupnosti ali z organizatorjem potovanja za paket, dan v prodajo na ozemlju Skupnosti.
The following week, the Presidency presented an unchanged text for, inter alia, Article 3(1)(b).
Naslednji teden je predsedstvo predstavilo nespremenjeno besedilo med drugim za člen 3(1)(b).
However, it asked delegations to reflect on the possibility of entering into the Council minutes a statement by Member States related to what was at that stage Article 19 (entitled ‘Report’), inviting the Commission, when drafting the report envisaged in that article, to focus in particular on the possibility of enlarging the scope of the
Vendar je prosilo delegacije, naj se izrečejo o možnosti, da bi bila v zapisnik Sveta vključena izjava držav članic v zvezi s tem, kar je bil takrat člen 19 (z naslovom „Poročilo“), s pozivom Komisiji, naj pri oblikovanju poročila, predvidenega v tem členu, posebej posveti možnosti raz�iritve obsega
A subsequent Council document issued following discussions both in COREPER and by the relevant Council Working Party, presenting the revised draft of the regulation, indicates that one of the two ‘major
Naslednji dokument Sveta, izdan po razpravah v COREPER in upo�tevni delovni skupini Sveta, ki predstavlja revidiran predlog Uredbe, kaže na to, da se je eno od dveh „glavnih odprtih vpra�anj“ nana�alo
18 — Council Report 14444/1/02 REV 1 of 22 November 2002.
18 – Poročilo Sveta 14444/1/02 REV 1 z dne 22. novembra 2002. Verzija poročila v angle�kem jeziku je dostopna na: http://register.consilium.europa.eu.
16 — The inclusion of the latter category of passengers itself extends the scope of protection beyond that conferred by Regulation No 295/91.
16 – Sama vključitev te kategorije potnikov raz�irja obseg varstva onkraj tega, ki ga določa Uredba �t. 295/91.
See recital 6 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004.
Glej �esto uvodno izjavo Uredbe �t. 261/2004.
19 — In its press release of 16 February 2005 (published the day before Regulation No 261/2004 came into force), the Commission suggested, as an explanation for why the new regulation did not cover flights operated by a nonCommunity carrier from a third country to a Member State, possible problems with extra-territoriality.
19 – V sporočilu za medije z dne 16. februarja 2005 (objavljenem dan preden je začela veljati Uredba �t. 261/2004) je Komisija nakazala različne probleme z ekstrateritorialnostjo kot razlago, zakaj nova Uredba ne velja tudi za lete, ki jih izvaja letalski prevoznik, ki ni letalski prevoznik Skupnosti, iz tretje države v državo članico.
17 — COM(2001) 784 final, dated 21 December 2001.
17 – COM(2001) 784 konč. z dne 21. decembra 2001.
Their use, moreover, is only ancillary to other techniques of interpretation.
Poleg tega se jih uporablja le pomožno poleg drugih tehnik razlage.
23That said, the Court has on occasion used them as an aid to interpretation when ascertaining the legislator’s intention, notably when they are confirmatory of a conclusion already arrived at by other means. 24
23Glede tega jih je Sodi�če občasno uporabilo kot pomoč pri razlagi pri ugotavljanju namena normodajalca, zlasti kadar potrjujejo sklep, ki je bil sprejet z drugimi sredstvi. 24
In December 2002 the Council reached political agreement on its common position on the draft regulation; and the suggestion for an entry in the Council minutes was elevated into a drafting amendment to the text of Article 19.
Decembra 2002 je Svet dosegel politično soglasje o skupnem stali�ču osnutka uredbe; predlog za vključitev v zapisnik Sveta je postal sprememba besedila člena 19.
21 The regulation as promulgated duly requires the Commission to report ‘in particular regarding … the possible extension of the scope of this Regulation to passengers having a contract with a Community carrier or holding a flight reservation which forms part of a “package tour” … and who depart from a third-country airport to an airport in a Member State, on flights not operated by Community … carriers’. 22
21V Uredbi, kot je bila sprejeta, se zahteva od Komisije, naj predloži poročilo „zlasti glede […] možnosti, da se področje uporabe te uredbe raz�iri na potnike, ki imajo pogodbo z letalskim prevoznikom Skupnosti ali rezervacijo za let, ki je del ‚paketnega potovanja‘, […] in odhajajo z letali�ča tretje države na letali�če države članice na letih, ki jih ne opravljajo letalski prevozniki Skupnosti“. 22
I add only that, if the construction of the existing Article 3(1)(a) advanced by Dr Schenkel were correct, most (although not all) 25‘passengers having a contract with a Community carrier or holding a flight reservation which forms part of a package tour … and who depart from a third-country airport to an airport in a Member State, on flights not operated by Community … carriers’ 26would already be included within the scope of the regulation.
Dodajam le to, da če bi bila razlaga obstoječega člena 3(1)(a), kot jo zagovarja D. Schenkel, pravilna, bi večina (čeprav ne vsi) 25„potnikov, ki [imajo] pogodbo z letalskim prevoznikom Skupnosti ali rezervacijo za let, ki je del ‚paketnega potovanja‘, […] in [odhaja] z letali�ča tretje države na letali�če države članice na letih, ki jih ne opravljajo letalski prevozniki Skupnosti“ 26 že bila vključena v Uredbo.
The reporting requirement expressly inserted by the Council would therefore, in that respect, largely be otiose.
Zahteva po predložitvi poročila, ki jo je Svet izrecno vstavil, bi torej bila popolnoma odveč.
Against that background, I find it impossible to accept that Article 3(1) should be read as covering a passenger on a return flight operated by a nonCommunity carrier from a third country to a Member State.
Glede na to ozadje se mi zdi nemogoče sprejeti, da bi se člen 3(1) razumelo, kot da velja za potnika na letu nazaj, ki ga zagotavlja letalski prevoznik, ki ni letalski prevoznik Skupnosti, iz tretje države v državo članico.
23 — See Case C-133/00 Bowden [2001] ECR I-7031, point 30 of the Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano.
23 – Glej sodbo z dne 4. oktobra 2001 v zadevi Bowden, C-133/00, Recueil, str. I-7031, točka 30, sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Tizzana.
24 — See, for example, Case C-275/96 Kuusijärvi [1998] ECR I-3419, paragraph 46.
24 – Glej na primer sodbo z dne 11. junija 1998 v zadevi Kuusijärvi, C-275/96, Recueil, str. I-3419, točka 46.
20 — Council Report 14724/02 of 28 November 2002.
20 – Poročilo Sveta 14724/02 z dne 28. novembra 2002.
An English language version is accessible on http://register.consilium.europa.eu.
Angle�ka različica poročila je dostopna na: http://register.consilium.europa.eu.
25 — Passengers in these categories who started their travels in the third country would, on this interpretation, be excluded: see point 33 above.
25 – Potniki v teh kategorijah, ki so začeli svoja potovanja v tretjih državah, bi bili v skladu s to razlago izključeni; glej točko 33 zgoraj.
21 — See Council Report 15595/02 of 16 December 2002.
21 – Glej poročilo Sveta 15595/02 z dne 16. decembra 2002.
That document may also be accessed on http://register.consilium.europa.eu.
Ta dokument je prav tako dostopen na: http://register.consilium.europa.eu.
26 — The terms of the reporting requirement themselves become questionable if Dr Schenkel’s construction of ‘flight’ and/or ‘depart’ is correct.
26 – Sami pogoji glede zahteve po predložitvi poročila bi postali vpra�ljivi, če bi bila razlaga „leta“ in/ali „odhoda“, kot jo daje D. Schenkel, pravilna.
The relevance of booking outward and return flights at the same time
Pomembnost istočasne rezervacije letov tja in nazaj
There is some national authority (mainly, but not exclusively, from common-law jurisdictions) for the proposition that, under the 1929 Warsaw Convention (the predecessor to the Montreal Convention), in a contract of international carriage for a round trip, the destination of that round trip is the point of departure. 27
Nekateri nacionalni organi (v glavnem, vendar ne izključno, iz sistema commonlaw) se zavzemajo za predlog, da je v skladu z Var�avsko konvencijo 1929 (predhodnico Montrealske konvencije) v pogodbi o mednarodnem prevozu za povratni let namembni kraj tega povratnega leta kraj odhoda. 27
The nature of a product or service is, as a rule, independent of the way in which it is bought.
Narava proizvoda ali storitve je praviloma neodvisna od načina, na katerega se pridobi.
It is therefore not immediately obvious to me why the way in which the outward and return flights are booked should affect the answer to the question whether a round trip should be regarded as a single ‘flight’ departing from the airport used at the start of that trip.
Zato se mi torej ne zdi takoj očitno, zakaj naj bi način, na katerega sta rezervirana leta tja in nazaj, vplival na odgovor na vpra�anje, ali je treba povratni let �teti kot en „let“ z odhodom z letali�ča, uporabljenega na začetku tega potovanja.
Within the ambit of a single commercial transaction, one may (for example) purchase several single journeys, one or more (different) round trips or indeed a season ticket conferring entitlement to multiple flights.
V mejah ene trgovske transakcije bi lahko nekdo (na primer) kupil več enosmernih potovanj, enega ali več (različnih) povratnih letov ali sezonsko karto za več letov.
However, whilst the Community is a signatory to the Montreal Convention and is bound by it, 28 Regulation No 261/2004 is not a Community measure implementing the convention.
Čeprav je Skupnost podpisnica Montrealske konvencije in mora ravnati v skladu z njo, 28pa Uredba �t. 261/2004 ni ukrep Skupnosti za izvajanje te konvencije.
Rather, it operates in parallel with it.
Bolj kot to deluje vzporedno z njo.
Regulation No 261/2004 contains one passing reference to the convention (in the
V Uredbi �t. 261/2004 je bežno omenjena Konvencija
An intermediate place at which the carriage may be broken is not regarded as “place of destination”.
Vmesni postanek, pri katerem bi bil prevoz lahko prekinjen, ne �teje kot ‚namembni kraj‘“.
Having regard to its context, and particularly to the fact that it is in the contract that the place of departure and the place of destination are to be looked for, the meaning of the expression appears to me to be “the place at which the contractual carriage begins and the place at which the contractual carriage ends”. … If the contract is for a circular voyage, starting at Berlin, visiting various European cap -itals and ending at Berlin, the contractual carriage begins at Berlin and ends at Berlin.’
Glede na njeno sobesedilo in zlasti na dejstvo, da je treba kraj odhoda in namembni kraj iskati v pogodbi, se mi zdi, da je pomen tega izraza „kraj, na katerem se pogodbeni prevoz začne in kraj, na katerem se pogodbeni prevoz konča“. […] Če pogodba velja za krožno potovanje, ki se začne v Berlinu, nadaljuje z obiskom različnih evropskih prestolnic in konča v Berlinu, se pogodbeni prevoz začne v Berlinu in konča v Berlinu.
See also Lee v China Airlines, 669 F.Supp. 979 (C.D.Cal.
Glej tudi Lee proti China Airlines, 669 F.Supp. 979 (C.D.Cal. 1987), in Qureshi proti K.L.M.
(Royal Dutch Airlines) (1979), 41 N.S.R. (2d) 653 (two procedural decisions from the US and Canada respectively on whether to strike out claims for lack of jurisdiction).
(Royal Dutch Airlines) (1979), 41 N.S.R. (2d) 653 (dva postopkovna sklepa iz ZDA in Kanade glede sklicevanja na neobstoj sodne pristojnosti.) Glej dalje, v Nemčiji, sklepa Bundesgerichtshof (1976) ZLW, 255, in Landgericht Berlin (1973) ZLW, 304.
I have not found equivalent authority in respect of the Montreal Convention.
Nisem na�la podobnega primera glede Montrealske konvencije.
Certain academic writers consider that the same applies under that convention.
Nekateri akademiki menijo, da se enako uporablja tudi v skladu s to konvencijo. Glej na primer E. Giemulla in R. Schmid (eds), Montrealska konvencija 1999 (zbirka 2006) Kluwer Law.
28 — Article 300(7) EC states that ‘[a]greements concluded under the conditions set out in this Article shall be binding on the institutions of the Community and on Member States’.
28 – Člen 300(7) ES določa, da so „[s]porazumi, sklenjeni v skladu s pogoji iz tega člena […] za institucije Skupnosti in države članice zavezujoči“.
The Montreal Convention was signed by the Community on the basis of Article 300(2) EC.
Montrealsko konvencijo je Skupnost podpisala na podlagi člena 300(2) ES. Glej Sklep Sveta �t.
See Decision 2001/539, cited in footnote 9, and Case C-344/04 IATA [2006] ECR I-403, paragraphs 35 to 36.
2001/539/ES, naveden v opombi 9, in sodbo IATA (C-344/04), ZOdl., str. I-403, točki 35 in 36.
The referring court and Dr Schenkel consider, however, that the Montreal Convention indicates that a round trip booked as one transaction should be considered as a single flight.
Vendar predložitveno sodi�če in D. Schenkel menita, da je v Montrealski konvenciji določeno, da je treba povratni let, rezerviran kot ena transakcija, �teti kot en let.
Under Article 1(2) of the Montreal Convention, ‘international carriage’ takes place when, according to the agreement between the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination are situated either (a) within the territories of two different States Parties, or (b) within the territory of a single State Party, but with an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State.
V skladu s členom 1(2) Montrealske konvencije „mednarodni prevoz“ pomeni vsak prevoz, pri katerem sta v skladu z dogovorom med pogodbenicama kraj odhoda in namembni kraj bodisi (a) na ozemljih dveh držav pogodbenic bodisi (b) na ozemlju ene države pogodbenice, vendar z dogovorjenim krajem vmesnega postanka na ozemlju druge države.
The Montreal Convention thus necessarily envisages the possibility that there may be a stopping place en route.
Montrealska konvencija torej nujno predvideva možnost, da obstaja vmesni postanek med potovanjem.
Article 1(3) provides that carriage by successive carriers to the place of destination ‘is deemed … to be regarded as one undivided carriage if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation’.
Člen 1(3) določa, da se prevoz, ki ga bo drug za drugim do namembnega kraja opravljalo več prevoznikov, „�teje […] kot enoten prevoz, če ga pogodbenice ocenjujejo kot en sam prevoz“.
29That is in striking contrast to Regulation No 2027/97, as amended, 30 which implements particular parts of the convention.
29To je v velikem nasprotju z Uredbo �t. 2027/97, kot spremenjena, 30ki izvaja določene dele Konvencije.