natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The German Government replied by letter of 13 May 2003 that, although the term ‘Parmesan’ had historical roots in the region of Parma, it had become a generic name for hard cheeses of diverse origins, grated or intended to be grated, distinct from the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je v dopisu z dne 13. maja 2003 odgovorila, da je pojem „parmezan“, čeprav zgodovinsko izvira iz pokrajine Parma, že postal generičen in se ga uporablja za označevanje trdih sirov različnih geografskih porekel, ki se jih strga ali so namenjeni strganju, in se razlikuje od ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
For that reason, its use did not infringe Regulation No 2081/92.
Zato naj uporaba tega pojma ne bi pomenila kr�itve Uredbe �t. 2081/92.
On 17 October 2003, the Commission sent the Federal Republic of Germany a letter of formal notice, to which it replied by letter of 17 December 2003.
Komisija je 17. oktobra 2003 Zvezni republiki Nemčiji poslala pisni opomin, na katerega je ta država članica odgovorila z dopisom z dne 17. decembra 2003.
Not being satisfied by the explanations rendered by the Federal Republic of Germany, on 30 March 2004, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion inviting it to take the measures necessary to comply with the opinion within two months of its notification.
Ker Komisija ni bila zadovoljna s pojasnili, ki jih je posredovala Zvezna republika Nemčija, je 30. marca 2004 izdala obrazloženo mnenje, s katerim je to državo članico pozvala, naj sprejme ukrepe, potrebne za uskladitev s tem mnenjem v roku dveh mesecev od njegove vročitve.
By letter of 15 June 2004, the Federal Republic of Germany informed the Commission that it adhered to its previous position.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je z dopisom z dne 15. junija 2004 Komisiji sporočila, da vztraja pri svojem stali�ču.
In those circumstances, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
Komisija se je v teh okoli�činah odločila vložiti to tožbo.
By order of the President of the Court of 6 September 2005, the Italian Republic on the one hand, and the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Austria, on the other hand, were given leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission and by the Federal Republic of Germany respectively.
S sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 6. septembra 2005 je bila Italijanski republiki na eni strani ter Kraljevini Danski in Republiki Avstriji na drugi strani dovoljena intervencija v podporo predlogom Komisije oziroma Zvezne republike Nemčije.
By order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006, the Czech Republic was given leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
Če�ki republiki je bila s sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 15. maja 2006 dovoljena intervencija v podporo predlogom Komisije.
In support of its action, the Commission relies on a single ground of complaint relating to the Federal Republic of Germany’s failure to proceed against the use, on its territory, of the name ‘Parmesan’ on the labelling of products which do not comply with the requirements of the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Komisija v utemeljitev tožbe navaja le en očitek, in sicer da Zvezna republika Nemčija zavrača sankcioniranje uporabe imena „parmezan“ za označevanje proizvodov, ki ne ustrezajo specifikaciji ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
The Federal Republic of Germany denies the failure to fulfil obligations on three grounds:
Zvezna republika Nemčija prereka neizpolnitev obveznosti na podlagi treh razlogov:
— first, a designation of origin is protected under Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92 only in the exact form in which it is registered;
– prvič, označba porekla je na podlagi člena 13 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 za�čitena le v tisti obliki, v kateri je registrirana;
— second, the use of the word ‘Parmesan’ does not infringe the protection of the designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, and
– drugič, uporaba besede „parmezan“ ne pomeni kr�itve za�čite označbe porekla „Parmigiano Reggiano“ in
— third, it is not bound to proceed on its own motion against infringements of Article 13 of the Regulation.
– tretjič, po uradni dolžnosti ni zavezana sankcionirati kr�itve navedenega člena 13.
Protection of compound designations
Zaščita sestavljenih imen
The Commission claims that the system of Community protection is underpinned by the principle that the registration of a designation containing several terms confers the protection of Community law both on the constituent elements of the compound designation and on the designation as a whole.
Komisija zatrjuje, da sistem za�čite Skupnosti temelji na načelu, da registracija imena, ki vsebuje več pojmov, zagotavlja pravno varstvo Skupnosti vsakemu delu imena in sestavljenemu imenu v celoti.
The effective protection of compound designations therefore implies that, in principle, all the constituent elements of a compound designation are protected against abuse.
Učinkovita za�čita sestavljenih imen naj bi zato pomenila, da so načeloma vsi deli sestavljenega imena za�čiteni proti zlorabam. Komisija meni, da Uredba �t.
The Commission is of the opinion that, in order to guarantee such protection, Regulation No 2081/92 does not require registration of every element of a compound designation intended to be protected, but assumes that each element enjoys intrinsic protection.
2081/92 za zagotovitev te za�čite ne zahteva registracije vsakega posameznega dela sestavljenega imena, ki bi ga bilo mogoče za�čititi, ampak izhaja iz načela, da vsak od navedenih delov uživa posebno za�čito.
That interpretation was confirmed by the Court in Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97 Chiciak and Fol [1998] ECR I-3315.
Tako razlago naj bi potrdilo tudi Sodi�če v sodbi z dne 9. junija 1998 v združenih zadevah Chiciak in Fol (C-129/97 in C-130/97, Recueil, str. I-3315).
The Commission argues that the principle of the protection of all the constituent elements of a compound designation is subject to only one exception, provided for in the second indent of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 2081/92, whereby the use of a single element of a compound designation is not regarded as an infringement of Article 13(1)(a) and (b) of the regulation if the element concerned is the name of an agricultural product or of a foodstuff which is considered to be generic.
Komisija navaja, da načelo za�čite vseh delov sestavljenega imena dopu�ča le eno izjemo, določeno v členu 13(1), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe �t. 2081/92, in sicer da uporaba samostojnega dela sestavljenega imena ni v nasprotju s členom 13(1)(a) in (b) navedene uredbe, kadar je ta del ime kmetijskega proizvoda ali živila, ki se �teje za generično.
That provision would be superfluous if the various constituent elements of designations registered exclusively in the form of compound designations were to be considered as not enjoying any protection.
Po drugi strani pa naj bi bila ta določba nepotrebna, če bi se lahko �telo, da različni deli imen, ki so registrirani le v obliki sestavljenih imen, ne uživajo nikakr�ne za�čite.
Furthermore, a single constituent element of a compound designation does not enjoy the protection of Regulation No 2081/92 if the Member States concerned indicated, when notifying the compound designation at issue, that protection was not requested for certain parts of that designation.
Poleg tega naj samostojen del sestavljenega imena ne bi užival za�čite na podlagi Uredbe �t. 2081/92, kadar so zadevne države članice v sporočilu o zadevnem sestavljenem imenu navedle, da za�čita nekaterih delov tega imena ni bila zahtevana.
The Commission took that into account when it adopted Regulation No 1107/96, by declaring as appropriate in a footnote that protection of part of the designation concerned was not requested.
Komisija naj bi to upo�tevala ob sprejetju Uredbe �t. 1107/96, s tem da bi, glede na primer, v opombi navedla, da za del zadevnega imena ni bila zahtevana za�čita.
In the case of the designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, no footnote was inserted in relation to either of those constituent elements.
V primeru imena „Parmigiano Reggiano“ naj v opombi ne bi bil naveden nobeden od obeh sestavnih delov.
The Federal Republic of Germany replies that a PDO enjoys the protection of Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92 only in the exact form in which it is registered.
Zvezna republika Nemčija odgovarja, da uživa ZOP za�čito na podlagi člena 13 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 le v natančno taki obliki, kot je bila registrirana.
The opposite contention cannot be inferred from the Court’s judgment in Chiciak and Fol, notwithstanding the Commission’s argument to that effect.
V nasprotju s trditvami Komisije na podlagi zgoraj navedene sodbe Chiciak in Fol ni mogoče sklepati drugače.
Furthermore, according to the Federal Republic of Germany, in the context of Case C-66/00 Bigi [2002] ECR I-5917, the Italian Republic itself expressly confirmed that it had purposely not registered the designation ‘Parmigiano’.
Poleg tega je Italijanska republika sama v okviru zadeve Bigi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba z dne 25. junija 2002 (C-66/00, Recueil, str. I-5917), izrecno potrdila, da se je odrekla registraciji imena „Parmigiano“.
In that regard, the eighth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1107/96 states that ‘certain Member States have made it known that protection was not requested for some parts of designations and this should be taken into account’.
V zvezi s tem je v osmi uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 1107/96 določeno: „ker so nekatere države članice sporočile, da za nekatere dele označb ni bilo zahtevano varstvo in je to treba upo�tevati“.
References in Regulation No 1107/96 to footnotes contained in its annex specify the cases in which protection of part of the designation concerned was not requested.
V Uredbi �t. 1107/96 so v opombah v njeni prilogi navedeni primeri, v katerih za določen del zadevnega imena ni bila zahtevana za�čita.
It must however be pointed out that the lack of a declaration that, for certain elements of a designation, the protection conferred by Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92 was not requested, cannot constitute a sufficient basis for determining the scope of that protection (see, to that effect, Chiciak and Fol, paragraph 37).
Vendar je treba poudariti, da neobstoj izjave, ki bi potrjevala, da za določene sestavne dele imena ni bila zahtevana za�čita, ki jo daje člen 13 Uredbe �t. 2081/92, ne bi pomenil zadostne podlage za ugotovitev obsega navedene za�čite (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Chiciak in Fol, točka 37).
Under the system of protection created by Regulation No 2081/92, questions concerning the protection to be accorded to the various constituent parts of a name, in particular the question whether a generic name or a constituent part protected against the practices referred to in Article 13 of that regulation may be concerned, are matters which fall for determination by the national court on the basis of a detailed analysis of the facts presented before it by the parties concerned (Chiciak and Fol, paragraph 38).
V sistemu za�čite, ki ga določa Uredba �t. 2081/92, spadajo vpra�anja glede za�čite, ki jo je treba odobriti za različne sestavne dele imena, in zlasti vpra�anja, ali gre morda za generično ime ali za�čiten sestavni del v nasprotju s primeri iz člena 13 navedene uredbe, na področje presoje, ki jo mora izvesti nacionalno sodi�če na podlagi podrobne analize dejanskega stanja, ki mu ga predstavijo zadevne stranke (zgoraj navedena sodba Chiciak in Fol, točka 38).
In those circumstances, the Federal Republic of Germany’s argument that a PDO enjoys protection under Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92 only in the exact form in which it is registered cannot succeed.
V teh okoli�činah trditev Zvezne republike Nemčije, da uživa ZOP na podlagi člena 13 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 za�čito le v natančno taki obliki, v kateri je bila registrirana, ne more uspeti.
According to the Commission, the marketing under the name ‘Parmesan’ of cheese which does not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ constitutes an infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92, since the term ‘Parmesan’ is the correct translation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Po mnenju Komisije pomeni dajanje sirov, ki ne ustrezajo specifikaciji ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, pod imenom „parmezan“ na trg kr�itev člena 13(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 2081/92, ker je izraz „parmezan“ pravilen prevod ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
The translation, like the PDO in the language of the Member State which obtained registration of that designation, is exclusively reserved for products which comply with the specification.
Prevod in ZOP naj bi bila v jeziku države članice, ki je pridobila registracijo za to označbo, izključno namenjena proizvodom, ki ustrezajo specifikaciji.
The Commission adds that, as shown by the close connection which evolved historically between the specific geographic region of Italy where that type of cheese comes from and the term ‘Parmesan’, the term is not a generic name which can be distinguished from the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Komisija dodaja, da izraz „parmezan“, tako kot dokazuje tesna, zgodovinsko potrjena zveza med posebnim geografskim območjem Italije, iz katerega izvira ta vrsta sira, in tem izrazom, ni generično ime, ki bi ga bilo mogoče razlikovati od ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
In any case, use of the name ‘Parmesan’ for a cheese which does not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ constitutes an evocation of that PDO, which is prohibited by Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92.
V vsakem primeru bi uporaba imena „parmezan“ za sir, ki ne ustreza specifikaciji ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, pomenila navajanje te označbe, ki je prepovedana s členom 13(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 2081/92.
The Commission also submits that the term ‘Parmesan’ has not become a generic name.
Komisija prav tako meni, da izraz „parmezan“ ni postal generično ime.
Of course, a geographical designation could, over time and through use, become a generic name in the sense that consumers cease to regard it as an indication of the geographical origin of the product, and come to regard it only as an indication of a certain type of product.
Seveda lahko geografsko ime sčasoma in z uporabo postane generično v smislu, da potro�niki gledajo nanj bolj kot na oznako določene vrste proizvoda in ne kot na oznako geografskega porekla proizvoda.
That shift in meaning occurred for instance in the case of the designations ‘Camembert’ and ‘Brie’.
Ta sprememba pomena besede naj bi se zgodila zlasti pri pojmih „kamamber“ in „brie“.
Nevertheless, it is the Commission’s view that the term ‘Parmesan’ has never lost its geographical connotation.
Za Komisijo izraz „parmezan“ nikoli ni izgubil svojega geografskega pomena.
Were ‘Parmesan’ really a neutral term without such a connotation, there would be no plausible explanation for the persistent efforts of manufacturers of imitations to establish through words or images a link between their products and Italy.
Če bi bil namreč „parmezan“ dejansko nevtralen izraz brez takega pomena, bi bilo nemogoče na sprejemljiv način pojasniti, zakaj proizvajalci ponaredkov vztrajajo pri tem, da z besedami in slikami vzpostavijo povezavo med svojimi proizvodi in Italijo.
Moreover, according to the Commission, the fact that up until the year 2000 a cheese called ‘Parmesan’, which did not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, was produced on Italian territory does not indicate that the term ‘Parmesan’ is the generic name in Italy for hard cheeses of diverse origin, because the cheese in question was exclusively intended for export to countries where the term ‘Parmesan’ did not enjoy any particular protection, in accordance with the principle of territoriality.
Poleg tega po mnenju Komisije dejstvo, da so do leta 2000 na ozemlju Italije proizvajali sir, imenovan „parmezan“, ki ni ustrezal specifikaciji ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, ne pomeni, da je ta izraz v Italiji generično ime za trde sire različnega porekla, saj je bil zadevni sir izključno namenjen za izvoz v države, v katerih izraz „parmezan“ ni užival nikakr�ne za�čite v skladu z načelom teritorialnosti.
Moreover, it is only since 21 June 1996, the date when Regulation No 1107/96 entered into force, that the name ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ has been protected at Community level.
Označba „Parmigiano Reggiano“ naj bi bila za�čitena na ravni Skupnosti �ele od 21. junija 1996, ko je začela veljati Uredba �t. 1107/96.
The Federal Republic of Germany contends that the use of the word ‘Parmesan’ does not infringe Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92, given that it is only a translation, in the opinion of the Commission, of the term ‘Parmigiano’, which, as illustrated by the situation in Italy and in other Member States and equally by national and Community legislation, is a generic name.
Zvezna republika Nemčija trdi, da uporaba besede „parmezan“ ne pomeni kr�itve člena 13(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 2081/92, ker je po mnenju Komisije le prevod izraza „Parmigiano“, kot dokazujejo položaj v Italiji in v drugih državah članicah ter nacionalne zakonodaje in zakonodaja Skupnosti, generično ime.
As a generic name, it cannot be protected under the regulation.
Kot generično ime pa naj ne bi moglo uživati za�čite na podlagi navedene uredbe.
In the alternative, the German Government submits that, even if the term ‘Parmigiano’ is not a generic name, to which therefore the provisions of the second indent of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 2081/92 do not apply, use of the term ‘Parmesan’ does not infringe the provisions concerning the protection of the designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Zvezna republika Nemčija podredno navaja, da čeprav izraz „Parmigiano“ ni generično ime in da se zato za ta sestavni del ne uporabljajo določbe člena 13(1), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe �t. 2081/92, uporaba izraza „parmezan“ ne pomeni kr�itve določb v zvezi z za�čito označbe „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
The name ‘Parmesan’ has evolved, over centuries, in a particular way and has become, in Germany, but also in other Member States, a generic name.
Ime „parmezan“ naj bi se v stoletjih razvijalo neodvisno in naj bi v Nemčiji in tudi v drugih državah članicah postalo generično ime.
Its use does not therefore constitute a misuse or evocation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Njegova uporaba naj zato ne bi pomenila poseganja v ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ niti njenega navajanja.
To substantiate that contention, the Federal Republic of Germany refers, first, to point 35 of the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-317/95 Canadane Cheese Trading and Kouri [1997] ECR I-4681, second, to Bigi, in which
Zvezna republika Nemčija se v podporo tej tezi sklicuje, prvič, na točko 35 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Ruiz-Jaraboja Colomerja v zadevi Canadane Cheese Trading in Kouri (C-317/95, Recueil, str.
COMMISSION v GERMANY the Court expressly left open the question whether the term ‘Parmesan’ is a generic designation, and third, to the fact that it is not sufficient to find that the name of a product is the translation of a designation of origin.
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI izrecno pustilo nere�eno vpra�anje, ali je izraz „parmezan“ generična označba, in, tretjič, na dejstvo, da ni dovolj ugotoviti, da je ime proizvoda prevod označbe porekla.
It is necessary to examine in each particular case whether that translation really amounts to an evocation of the designation at issue.
V vsakem posameznem primeru bi bilo treba preučiti, ali ta prevod resnično pomeni navajanje zadevne označbe.
That is not the case where the name at issue, while originally a translation, has, with the passage of time, taken on another meaning in the ordinary usage of consumers, thus becoming a generic name.
Nasprotno pa bi bilo v primeru, ko bi sporno ime, čeprav bi bilo najprej prevod, sčasoma pridobilo drugačen pomen v pogovornem jeziku potro�nikov in bi tako postalo generično.
Fourth, the Federal Republic of Germany relies on the fact that in Germany — the only Member State in which the generic quality of the term ‘Parmesan’ is decisive given the present infringement proceedings — the word ‘Parmesan’ has always been understood as the generic name of a hard cheese grated or intended to be grated.
Četrtič, navedena država članica se sklicuje na dejstvo, da je v Nemčiji – edini državi članici, v kateri je presoja generičnosti izraza „parmezan“ odločilna glede na ta postopek zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti – beseda „parmezan“ od nekdaj zami�ljena kot generično ime trdih sirov, ki se jih strga ali so namenjeni strganju.
Moreover, that is also the situation in other Member States, including Italy.
Poleg tega naj bi bilo tako tudi v drugih državah članicah, vključno z Italijo.
It is necessary, first, to establish whether use of the name ‘Parmesan’ corresponds, with regard to the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, to one of the situations referred to in Article 13(1) of Regulation No 2081/92.
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, ali uporaba imena „parmezan“ glede na ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ ustreza kateremu od primerov iz člena 13(1) Uredbe �t. 2081/92.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that, under Article 13(1)(b) of that regulation, registered names are protected against any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the protected name is translated.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da so na podlagi člena 13(1)(b) navedene uredbe registrirana imena za�čitena posebej proti vsaki zlorabi, posnemanju ali navajanju, čeprav je pravo poreklo proizvoda označeno ali če je za�čiteno ime prevedeno.
With regard to the evocation of a PDO, the Court has held that that term covers a situation where the term used to designate a product incorporates part of a protected designation, so that when the consumer is confronted with the name of the product, the image brought to his mind is that of the product whose designation is protected (Case C-87/97 Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola [1999] ECR I-1301, paragraph 25).
Sodi�če je glede navajanja ZOP odločilo, da ta pojem zajema primer, v katerem izraz, uporabljen za opis proizvoda, vključuje del za�čitenega imena, tako da potro�nik, ko se sreča z imenom proizvoda, pomisli na proizvod, katerega označba je za�čitena (sodba z dne 4. marca 1999 v zadevi Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola, C-87/97, Recueil, str. I-1301, točka 25).
The Court has pointed out that it is possible for a PDO to be evoked where there is no likelihood of confusion between the products concerned and even where no Community protection extends to the parts of that designation which are echoed in the term or terms at issue (Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola, paragraph 26).
Sodi�če je pojasnilo, da se je mogoče sklicevati na ZOP, kadar ni verjetnosti zmede med zadevnimi proizvodi in celo kadar se za�čita Skupnosti ne bi nana�ala na dele zadevnega imena, ki povzema sporno terminologijo (zgoraj navedena sodba Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola, točka 26).
In the present case, there is phonetic and visual similarity between the names ‘Parmesan’ and ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, and that in a situation where the products at issue are hard cheeses, grated or intended to be grated, namely, where they have a similar appearance (see, to that effect, Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola, paragraph 27).
V obravnavani zadevi obstaja fonetična in vidna podobnost med imenoma „parmezan“ in „Parmigiano Reggiano“, in sicer ko so zadevni proizvodi trdi siri, ki se jih strga ali so namenjeni strganju, torej ko so si na videz podobni (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola, točka 27).
In addition, regardless whether the name ‘Parmesan’ is or is not an exact translation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ or of the term ‘Parmigiano’, the conceptual proximity between those two terms emanating from different languages, which was revealed in discussions before the Court, must also be taken into account.
Poleg tega se mora, neodvisno od vpra�anja, ali je ime „parmezan“ natančen prevod ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ ali izraza „Parmigiano“ ali ne, prav tako upo�tevati konceptualna bližina med dvema izrazoma v različnih jezikih, o kateri pričajo razprave pred Sodi�čem.