natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Whereas the Italian Republic argued that the Commission had not demonstrated the existence of a real, concrete risk of distortion of competition, the Court thus pointed out that, where aid has been granted by a Member State without having been notified to the Commission beforehand at the planning stage, the decision finding that aid to be incompatible with the common market did not have to demonstrate the real effect which the aid might have on competition or trade between Member States.
Sodišče je tako kot stransko pritožbo, ki jo je vložila Komisija, zavrnilo tudi pritožbo, ki jo je vložila Italijanska republika.
Along the same lines, the Court also recalled that the condition for the application of Article 87(1) EC, namely that the aid must be capable of affecting trade between Member States, did not depend on the local or regional character of the transport services supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned.
I3925) je Sodišče odločalo o tožbi Zvezne republike Nemčije za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije 2000/567/ES z dne 11. aprila 2000 o državni pomoči podjetju iz nekdanje Nemške demokratične republike, v tem obdobju vodilnemu podjetju na trgu potrošnikom prilagojenega integriranega vezja, ki je po več prestrukturiranjih postalo podjetje System Microelectronic Innovation GmbH (SMI), katerega večinski lastnik je bila dežela Brandenburg z 51 %, preostali kapital pa je pridobilo ameriško podjetje Synergy Semiconductor Corporation (Synergy).
The Court further ruled once more that the fact that a Member State sought to approximate, by unilateral measures, the conditions of competition in a particular sector of the economy to those prevailing in other Member States could not deprive the measures in question of their character as State aid.
SMI je že pridobil finančno podporo tako od dežele Brandenburg kot od Treuhandanstalta, nemške pravne osebe javnega prava, kateri je bilo naloženo prestrukturiranje podjetij nekdanje Nemške demokratične republike, in pravne osebe, ki jo je nasledila, bodisi v obliki pomoči, namenjenih investicijam, premestitvi ali v obliki posojil.
That said, even if in certain cases the very circumstances in which State aid had been granted
SMI je bil zaradi težav, na katere je naletel v okviru svojih dejavnosti, prisiljen predlagati stečaj, zaradi česar je bila njegova firmaspremenjenav„SMI iG“, družba v likvidaciji, in imenovan stečajni upravitelj, ki je, da bi omogočil
The Italian Republic further argued that, as the aid in dispute had an insignificant effect on the position of the recipient undertakings, recovery of that aid would infringe the principle of proportionality.
Sodišče je sprejelo enako rešitev iz enakih razlogov tudi v zvezi s posojili, ki jih je SMI dodelila dežela Brandenburg.
The Court once again ruled that the recovery of State aid unlawfully granted could not in principle be regarded as disproportionate to the objectives of the Treaty in regard to State aid or as a failure by the Commission to act within the bounds of its discretion inasmuch as such a measure does no more than to restore the previous situation.
Nemška vlada se je sicer podredno sklicevala tudi na člen 87(2)(c) ES, ki naj bi ga bilo mogoče uporabiti in v skladu s katerim so s skupnim trgom združljive pomoči, dodeljene gospodarstvu nekaterih območij Zvezne republike Nemčije, ki jih je prizadela delitev Nemčije, kolikor so potrebne za nadomestilo gospodarske škode, ki jo je ta delitev povzročila.
A second case, Case C-298/00 P Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-4087, also arose from the dispute concerning State aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region to road haulage companies between 1981 and 1995.
Sodišče je v tej točki pravzaprav opozorilo, da „tudi če naj se po združitvi Nemčije člen 87(2)(c) ES uporablja za nove dežele, pa si te uporabe ni mogoče zamišljati drugače kot v enakih okoliščinah, v katerih se je uporabljal v nekdanjih deželah za obdobje pred dnem navedene združitve“.
More precisely, the case derived from an appeal brought by the Italian Republic, which, having intervened in the proceedings at first instance in support of the form of order sought by the applicants, challenged the abovementioned judgment of the Court of First Instance in Alzetta and Others v Commission, by which that Court partially dismissed the applications brought by a number of recipient undertakings for annulment in part of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997.
Ker se s tega vidika pojmi „delitev Nemčije“ zgodovinsko nanašajo na delitveno črto med okupacijskima conama v letu 1948, „ekonomska škoda, ki je nastala s to delitvijo“, ne more določati drugega kot škode, povzročene v določenih nemških deželah zaradi osamitve, ki je sledila postavitvi fizične meje, kot sta prekinitev sredstev komunikacije in izguba trgov, nastali po prekinitvi trgovinskih odnosov med deloma nemškega ozemlja.
The Commission itself also lodged a cross-appeal in which it submitted that the application brought by those undertakings before the Court of First Instance was inadmissible on the ground that, even though recovery of the aid was called for in the decision, that decision was addressed to the Italian Republic and concerned a statutory scheme of State aid: it was for those reasons not of individual concern to the recipient undertakings and the Court of First Instance ought for that reason to have examined the issue of admissibility of its own motion.
Nasprotno zamisel, da bi člen 87(2)(c) ES dopuščal polno nadomestilo – čeprav neizpodbitnega – ekonomskega zaostanka, ki so ga utrpele nove dežele, krši tako izjemno naravo te določbe kot tudi njen kontekst in cilje, ki jih zasleduje.
The Court first dismissed the cross-appeal brought by the Commission, ruling that an undertaking which, as in the case of the applicants at first instance, is not only concerned by the decision in question as an undertaking operating in the sector in issue and a potential beneficiary of the disputed aid scheme, but also by virtue of being an actual recipient of individual aid granted under that scheme, the recovery of which has been ordered by the Commission, is in a different position from that of applicants for whom a Commission decision is in the nature of a measure of general application.
Pravzaprav ekonomske škode, ki so jo na splošno utrpele nove dežele, ni neposredno povzročila zemljepisna delitev Nemčije v smislu člena 87(2)(c) ES, „razlike v razvoju med nekdanjimi in novimi deželami pa pojasnjujejo drugi razlogi, kot je geografski prelom,
On the substance, the Court had in particular to rule on the question of the degree to which the disputed aid was liable to affect intraCommunity trade and competition.
Sodišče ki izvira iz delitve Nemčije in predvsem iz različnih politično-ekonomskih ureditev, uvedenih v obeh delih Nemčije“ (točke 49–53).
The Court concluded by confirming its position that ‘the fact that a Member State seeks to approximate, by unilateral measures, conditions of competition in a particular sector of the economy to those prevailing in other Member States cannot deprive the measures in question of their character as aid’ (paragraph 61).
Nemška vlada nazadnje izpodbija povračilo, ki ji je bilo naloženo v izpodbijani odločbi, predvsem zato, ker gre za nezakonito širjenje lastnosti upravičenca do pomoči. Sodišče je izpodbijano odločbo razglasilo za nično ravno v tem delu.
In the same way as the cross-appeal brought by the Commission, the Court therefore also dismissed the appeal brought by the Italian Republic.
Predmetni ukrep je sestavljala „obvezna namenska dajatev“, namenjena financiranjuskupinskeoglaševalske kampanje podjetij s področja optike.
In Case C-277/00 Germany v Commission [2004] ECR I-3925, the Court ruled on an application by the Federal Republic of Germany for the annulment of Commission Decision 2000/567/EC of 11 April 2000 on the State aid granted to an undertaking established under the former German Democratic Republic which was at the time a market leader in the manufacture of customised circuits and which, following several restructuring stages, became System Microelectronic Innovation GmbH (‘SMI’), in which the majority shareholding of 51% was held by the Land of Brandenburg, the remaining share capital having been acquired by an American company, Synergy Semiconductor Corporation (‘Synergy’).
S prvimi tremi vprašanji Vrhovno sodišče Nizozemske v bistvu sprašuje, ali je mogoče financiranjeoglaševalskih kampanj s strani HBA v korist podjetij iz panoge optike šteti za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) ES, in če je tako, ali bi morala biti v okoliščinah konkretnega primera, upoštevaje pravilo de minimis, o pravilih HBA – kot sestavnih delih ureditve pomoči –, s katerimi je bila dajatev, namenjena financiranjunavedenihkampanj,prevaljena na njegove člane, Komisija obveščena v skladu s členom 88(3) ES.
SMI had already received financial support from the Land of Brandenburg, the Treuhandanstalt (the German publiclaw body responsible for restructuring the undertakings of the former German Democratic Republic) and the body
Pridobiti želi pojasnila o tem, ali so obvezne namenske dajatve, naložene tožeči stranki v postopku v glavni stvari, zaradi njihove neposredne zveze z morebitnimi pomočmi, ki niso bile sporočene, prav tako nezakonite, tako da bi načeloma morale biti predmet vračila. S
The Court also adopted the same solution, on the same grounds, in regard to the loans which the Land of Brandenburg had made to SMI.
BBM je zavrnil registracijo, saj je bil znak za proizvode in storitve v razmerju do poštnega urada popolnoma opisen.
The Court also rejected that plea on the ground that the German Government had failed to adduce any evidence to show that the disputed aid was required in order to compensate for an economic disadvantage caused by the division of Germany.
Sodišče opozarja, da zgoraj navedena določba s prepovedjo opisnih znakov zasleduje cilj splošnega pomena, in sicer lahko te znake vsak svobodno uporablja, in preprečuje, da bi bili pridržani zgolj za eno podjetje zaradi njihove registracije kot znamke.
The Court pointed out in this regard that ‘although, following the reunification of Germany, Article 87(2)(c) EC falls to be applied to the new Länder, such application can only be on the same conditions as those applicable in the old Länder during the period preceding the date of that reunification’.
V navedenih okoliščinah mora pristojni organ, če ugotovi, da so trenutno lastnosti zadevnega proizvoda ali storitve v očeh upoštevnih krogov opisne ali če bi lahko po razumni oceni to postale v prihodnosti, zavrniti nadaljevanje postopka za registracijo znamke. V tem
In that regard, as the phrase ‘division of Germany’ referred historically to the establishment in 1948 of the dividing line between the two occupied zones, the
Prva direktiva Sveta 89/104/EGS o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami z dne 21. decembra 1988 (UL 1989, L 40, str. 1).
By contrast, the idea that Article 87(2)(c) EC permitted full compensation for the undeniable lack of economic development suffered by the new Länder disregarded both the nature of that provision as a derogation and its context and aims.
Pristojni organ mora tako v podobnem primeru preveriti morebitni opisni značaj znaka v vseh teh prevodih. Sodišče je bilo postavljeno v položaj, da naj se izreče o razmerju med razlikovalnim učinkom in opisno naravo.
The economic disadvantages suffered by the new Länder as a whole were not directly caused by the geographical division of Germany within the meaning of Article 87(2)(c) EC and ‘the differences in development between the original and the new Länder are explained by causes other than the geographical rift caused by the division of Germany and in particular by the different politico-economic systems set up in each part of Germany’ (paragraphs 49 to 53).
Če po splošnem pravilu preprosta kombinacija sestavnih delov, izmed katerih so vsi opisni, ostane tudi sama opisna, pa ni tako v primeru, če ta kombinacija ustvari od tega proizvoda dovolj oddaljen vtis s preprosto združitvijo opisnih sestavnih delov, če preseže vsoto teh sestavnih delov zato, ker ima kombinacija v primerjavi z zadevnimi proizvodi ali storitvami nenavaden značaj, ali če se je beseda v vsakdanjem jeziku pojavila in pridobila lastni pomen, tako da je od takrat neodvisna od svojih sestavnih delov (če v tem primeru beseda sama ni opisna).
In conclusion, the German Government challenged the recovery order contained in the contested decision, on the basis, inter alia, of an unlawful extension of the status of aid beneficiary.
3.9 S področja bogate sodne prakse, ki je obravnavala ukrepe Skupnosti za približevanje zakonodaje držav članic, opozarjamo na tri zadeve Fixtures Marketing (sodbe z dne 9. novembra 2004, C-46/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.; C-338/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.; C-444/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) in na zadevo The British Horseracing Board in drugi (sodba z dne 9. novembra 2004, C-203/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.), ki so se nanašale na to, kar imenujemo pravica sui generis v smislu Direktive 96/912, in na obseg predmetnega pravnega varstva na področju športnih stav.
By its first three questions the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in substance asked whether the funding of advertising campaigns by the HBA for the benefit of opticians’ businesses could be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and whether, if necessary taking into account the de minimis rule, the HBA’s byelaws imposing levies on its members in order to fund those campaigns ought – as components of an aid scheme – to have been notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) EC.
Združenem kraljestvu, katerih upravljanje oziroma organizacija pa je bila zaupana drugim pravnim subjektom, tožečim strankam v postopku v glavni stvari. V treh zadevah je sporno uporabo pomenila reprodukcija podatkov, ki so se nanašali na koledarje nogometnega prvenstva Anglije in Škotske, na stavnih lističih, shranjenih v elektronski obliki in objavljenih, predvsem v brošurah, katerih upravljanje pa je bilo na podlagi licenc zaupano tožeči strani v postopku v glavni stvari.
The Hoge Raad was thus seeking clarification as to whether the compulsory earmarked levies imposed on the appellants in the main proceedings were, because they were directly linked to what might be unnotified aid, also vitiated by unlawfulness, with the result that they had in principle to be reimbursed.
V četrti zadevi so določene družbe na dveh spletnih straneh za konjske stave on-line razširjale podatke iz časopisov in neobdelane podatke na podlagi pooblastila tožeče stranke, ki je odgovorna za organizacijo konjskih dirk v Združenem kraljestvu in ki v tem okviru zagotavlja razvoj in upravlja bazo podatkov, katere zaščito je zahtevala.
By its fourth and fifth questions, the Hoge Raad also asked whether, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, it was contrary to Community law for the courts with jurisdiction to apply the rule of Netherlands case-law on formal legal force which prevented their remaining able to examine the lawfulness of the HBA’s decisions imposing charges on the appellants in the main proceedings where the byelaws on which those decisions were based were introduced in contravention of Article 88(3) EC.
Tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari menijo, da podjetja, ki za ponujanje stav uporabljajo njihove podatke, kršijo pravico, ki jim jo daje njihovo nacionalno pravo, kot je bilo spremenjeno zaradi prenosa Direktive o pravnem varstvu baz podatkov. Kot ukrep za prenos Direktive je treba upoštevne nacionalne določbe tako razlagati v luči Direktive.
After establishing that, even if the HBA was a public body, it did not, in the circumstances of the case, appear that the advertising campaign was funded by resources made available to the national authorities; on the contrary, the judgment making the reference made it clear that the monies used by the HBA for the purpose of funding the advertising campaign in question were collected from its members who benefited from the campaign by means of compulsory levies earmarked for the organisation of that advertising campaign, the initiative for which, moreover, came from a private association of opticians, the Court ruled that ‘on a proper construction of Articles [87(1) EC and 88(3) EC], byelaws adopted by a trade association governed by public law for the purpose of funding an advertising campaign organised for the benefit of its members and decided on by them, through resources levied from those members and compulsorily earmarked for the funding of that campaign, do not constitute an integral part of an aid measure within the meaning of those provisions and it was not necessary for prior notification of them to be given to the Commission since it has been established that that funding was carried out by means of resources which that trade association, governed by public law, never had the power to dispose of freely’ (paragraph 41). It was for that reason no longer necessary to reply to the last two questions.
Pri odločanju v navedenih pravdah so finski Vantaan Käräjäoikeus, angleški Court of Appeal, švedski Högsta Domstolen in grški Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon Sodišču postavili več predhodnih vprašanj o namenu in področju uporabe varstva, uvedenega z direktivo, in predvsem o členu 7(1) te direktive, na podlagi katerega lahko izdelovalec baze podatkov, pri katerem je prišlo do kakovostno in/ali količinsko znatne naložbe v pridobivanje, preverjanje ali predstavitev vsebine, prepreči neupravičeno jemanje izvlečkov in/ali ponovno uporabo celotne vsebine te baze podatkov ali njenega bistvenega dela, ocenjenega kakovostno in/ali količinsko.
On 2 April 1997, the company Koninklijke KPN Nederland lodged with the Benelux Trade Mark Office (‘the BTMO’) an application for registration of the word ‘Postkantoor’ (‘Post Office’ in Dutch) as a trade mark in respect of paper, card and articles manufactured from those materials, in addition to a variety of services.
Pridobivanje podatkov, ki sestavljajo navedene koledarje, pravzaprav ne zahteva nobenega posebnega napora s strani poklicnih lig, ki so neločljivo povezane z ustvarjanjem teh podatkov, in sredstva, porabljena za preverjanje oziroma predstavitev koledarja, prav tako ne zahtevajo znatne naložbe, neodvisne od vlaganj, povezanih s pridobivanjem podatkov, ki ga sestavljajo (zadeve C-46/02, C-338/02 in C-444/02).
Page 39
Dejavnost
As implementing measures, the relevant national provisions had to be interpreted in light of the directive.
3.10 Na področju socialne politike si posebno pozornost zaslužita dve sodbi.
Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20).
V prvi sodbi, Alabaster (sodba z dne 30. marca 2004, C-147/02, Recueil, str.
The Court thus held there that ‘the resources used to draw up a list of horses in a race and to carry out checks in that connection do not constitute investment in the obtaining and verification of the contents of the database in which that list appears’ (Case C-203/02, paragraph 42).
I-3101), je Court of Appeal na Sodišče naslovilo vprašanje o upoštevanju povišanj plače pri izračunu zakonitega materinskega nadomestila.
In the case in point, Mrs Alabaster, an employee in the United Kingdom, commenced maternity leave in January 1996.
Alabaster, zaposlena v Veliki Britaniji, upravičena do porodniškega dopusta od vključno januarja 1996. Malo pred začetkom navedenega dopusta je prejela povišanje plače s povratnim učinkom od meseca decembra.
However, that increase could not be reflected in the calculation of her statutory maternity pay since the applicable national legislation has regard to an earlier period, corresponding to the months of September and October, for calculating normal earnings.
Predmetnega povišanja pa ni bilo mogoče upoštevati pri izračunu zakonitega materinskega nadomestila, kolikor je nacionalna ureditev, ki jo je bilo treba uporabiti, za izračun običajne plače upoštevala predhodno obdobje, in sicer september in oktober.
The Court found first of all that Directive 92/85 questions asked by the national court.
Sodišče je najprej ugotovilo, da na podlagi Direktive 92/85 ni mogoče učinkovito odgovoriti na vprašanja nacionalnega sodišča.
However, after considering all the Community legislation it succeeded in establishing the general principles applicable to the case. The
Vendar pa je po presoji celote besedil skupnostnega prava Sodišču uspelo razviti splošna načela, ki jih je mogoče uporabiti v konkretnem primeru.
The benefit paid to a pregnant woman during her maternity leave is to be treated like pay.
Dajatev, ki se izplača nosečnici med porodniškim dopustom, je izenačena s prejemki.
She cannot of course claim full pay since she is in a special position compared with workers actually at work.
Navedena oseba seveda ne more zahtevati celotnega prejemka, če je njen položaj poseben glede na položaj delavca, ki dejansko dela na svojem delovnem mestu.
That is a standard application of the principle of equal treatment.
To je klasična uporaba načela enakosti.
Nevertheless, since the benefit paid is equivalent to pay (see to this effect Case C-342/93 Gillespie and Others [1996] ECR I-475), the principle of non-discrimination results in her being entitled to the increase since, had she not been pregnant, she would have received a pay rise.
Kljub temu ji je, če je izplačana dajatev enaka plači (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 13. februarja 1996 v zadevi Gillespie in drugi, C-342/93, Recueil, str. I-475), na podlagi načela nediskriminacije priznana pravica do povišanja plače, če bi, če ne bi bila noseča, prejela višjo plačo.
That requirement is not limited to cases where the pay rise is backdated to the period covered by the reference pay.
Predmetna zahteva pa ni omejena na primer, v katerem gre za retroaktivno uporabo povišanja za obdobje, v katerem je bila izplačana upoštevna plača.
This is an application of the principle of equal pay for men and women.
To je uporaba načela enakosti na področju enakega plačila za delavke in delavce.
The Court refused, however, to express a view on the precise manner in which that principle was to be implemented since this fell outside its jurisdiction in proceedings for a preliminary ruling.
Kljub temu je Sodišče zavrnilo sprejem stališča o konkretnem načinu za uresničevanje načela, saj bi to po njegovem mnenju preseglo pristojnosti, ki jih ima v okviru postopka s predlogom za sprejem predhodne odločbe.
It also refused to take a view on the standpoint to be adopted in the event of a decrease in pay since that question appeared hypothetical in the case in point.
Prav tako se ni hotelo izreči o stališču, ki bi ga bilo treba sprejeti v primeru, če bi se znižalo plačilo, če je bilo vprašanje v konkretnem primeru hipotetično.
This question therefore remains open.
Navedeno vprašanje ostaja torej še odprto.
In the second judgment, namely the judgment of 5 October 2004 in Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others, not yet published in the ECR, which develops the judgment in Case C-151/02 Jaeger [2003] ECR I-8389 concerning time spent by doctors on call, the Court held that the maximum weekly working time for rescue workers in an emergency medical rescue service cannot exceed 48 hours.
V drugi sodbi, ki jo je Sodišče izdalo v združenih zadevah Pfeiffer in drugi (sodba z dne 5. oktobra 2004, od C-397/01 do C-403/01, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) in ki je nadaljevanje njegove sodbe Jaeger (sodba z dne 9. septembra 2003, C-151/02, Recueil, str.
In Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01, Mr Pfeiffer and the other claimants were, or had been, employed as emergency workers by the German Red Cross, a private-law body which operates a land-based rescue service using ambulances and emergency medical vehicles.
I-8389) o dežurstvu zdravnikov, je presodilo, da najdaljši delovni čas reševalcev, zaposlenih v reševalski službi, ne sme preseči 48 ur.