natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is on the basis of that link between the status as party and the exercise of a right of appeal that Tele2 argues, first of all, that Article 4 of the Framework Directive grants it an effective right of appeal against decisions of the regulatory authority adopted in the course of market analysis proceedings.
Družba Tele2 na podlagi te zveze med položajem stranke in izvr�evanjem pravice do vlaganja pravnega sredstva najprej zatrjuje, da ji člen 4 okvirne direktive daje pravico do vlaganja pravnega sredstva zoper odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa, sprejeto v okviru postopka analize trga.
It goes on to express the view that, once Community law guarantees it such an effective right of appeal, it should also be entitled to take part, as a party, in the non-adversarial market analysis proceedings.
Nato meni, da bi morala imeti, ker ima na podlagi prava Skupnosti pravico do vlaganja pravnega sredstva, tudi pravico do sodelovanja v postopku analize trga.
Only a complete knowledge of the pre-contentious procedure — which it can obtain only through participation as a party — will allow it effectively to exercise its right of appeal.
Samo celovito poznavanje stanja v predhodnem postopku, ki je mogoče le, če v njem sodeluje kot stranka, naj bi ji omogočalo, da učinkovito izvr�uje pravico do vlaganja pravnega sredstva.
networks and/or services who is affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority has the right of appeal against the decision to an appeal body that is independent of the parties involved’. There is no definition, either in Article 4 or in any other provision of the Framework Directive, of the concept of an undertaking ‘affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority’.
nacionalni ravni na voljo učinkoviti mehanizmi, po katerih ima „vsak uporabnik ali podjetje, ki zagotavlja elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in/ali storitve ter je prizadet z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa, pravico do pritožbe zoper odločbo pri pritožbenem organu, ki je neodvisen od udeleženih strank.“ Niti v členu 4 niti v katerikoli drugi določbi okvirne direktive ni opredelitve pojma podjetja, „prizadet[ega] z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa“.
The national court suggests that clarification as to the meaning of an ‘affected’ party for the purposes of Article 4(1) may be found in Article 16(3), which provides that ‘parties affected’ by the withdrawal of sector-specific regulatory obligations imposed on an undertaking formerly having significant market power are to be given an appropriate period of notice of such withdrawal.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da je razlago za ta pojem „prizadete“ stranke v smislu člena 4(1) najti v členu 16(3), ki določa, da je treba stranke, ki jih zadeva preklic regulativnih obveznosti, naloženih podjetju, ki je imelo pomembno tržno moč, o tem obvestiti v primernem roku.
I do not think that clarification of the concept of affected persons or undertakings, within the meaning of Article 4, is to be obtained simply by treating that concept as similar in meaning to that of ‘parties affected’ in Article 16(3) of the same directive.
Menim, da opredelitve pojma prizadete osebe ali podjetja v smislu člena 4 ni mogoče enačiti s pojmom „strank, ki jih zadeva preklic obveznosti“ iz člena 16(3) iste direktive.
To answer that question, the category of third party to which the applicant in the main proceedings belongs must first be determined.
Da bi odgovorili na to vpra�anje, je treba najprej natančno opredeliti, v katero kategorijo tretjih oseb spada tožeča stranka iz postopka v glavni stvari.
The wording of the first question refers simply to undertakings operating as competitors on the relevant market.
Besedilo prvega vpra�anja se nana�a na konkurente na upo�tevnem trgu.
It can be seen from the order for reference, however, that Tele2 is a competitor of the undertaking having significant market power but is also, and more precisely, a contractual partner of that undertaking whose legal position could be adversely affected by a decision of the regulatory authority adopted in the course of market analysis proceedings.
Iz predložitvenega sklepa izhaja, da je družba Tele2 podjetje, ki konkurira podjetju s pomembno tržno močjo, poleg tega in natančneje pa je tudi pogodbeni partner tega podjetja in bi lahko odločba regulativnega organa, sprejeta v okviru postopka analize trga, negativno vplivala na njegov pravni položaj.
It would seem to follow from the order for reference, therefore, that the existence of contractual relations with the undertaking having significant market power, based on the specific obligations imposed on that undertaking by the regulatory authority — and not merely the fact that it is a competitor — is the factor which constitutes the applicant’s specific situation.
Iz predložitvenega sklepa torej izhaja, da je pogodbeno razmerje s podjetjem s pomembno tržno močjo, ki temelji na določenih obveznostih, ki jih je slednjemu naložil regulativni organ – in ne zgolj dejstvo, da temu podjetju konkurira – glavni dejavnik, ki opredeljuje položaj tožeče stranke.
That is the more specific context in which consideration must first be paid to the question whether an undertaking such the applicant in the main proceedings is entitled to a right of appeal under Article 4 of the Framework Directive.
Ob upo�tevanju tega je treba najprej ugotoviti, ali ima podjetje, kot je tožeča stranka, pravico do pritožbe na podlagi člena 4 okvirne direktive.
Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive requires the Member States to ensure that effective mechanisms exist at national level under which ‘any user or undertaking providing electronic communications
4 – Zlasti angle�ka, nem�ka, italijanska, �panska, če�ka, gr�ka, �vedska različica.
Although it is true that several language versions use the same term in Articles 4
Člen 4(1) okvirne direktive državam članicam nalaga, naj poskrbijo, da so na
5Comparison of the different language versions of the two articles does not therefore allow the conclusion that the two concepts necessarily have the same meaning.
Na podlagi primerjave različnih jezikovnih različic v obeh členih torej ni mogoče sklepati, da imata oba pojma enak pomen.
Moreover, given that the meaning of the two provisions of the directive is not absolutely clear, as will be seen, it would appear that recourse to Article 16(3) in order to clarify the term ‘affected’ in Article 4(1) would be the legal equivalent of a blind person leading another blind person out of a labyrinth.
Ker pomen obeh določb direktive, kot bomo videli, ni popolnoma jasen, pomeni uporaba člena 16(3) za razlago pojma „prizadeta stranka“ iz člena 4(1), kot če bi slep človek vodil drugega slepega človeka ven iz labirinta.
such a withdrawal of obligations’, would have gone so far beyond what was required as to limit the obligation to notify a decision withdrawing obligations only to the undertakings having significant market power which benefit from that decision.
da bi omejil obve�čanje o preklicu obveznosti samo na podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo, ki imajo zaradi odločbe korist 6.
6 However, the fact that an undertaking such as Tele2 is, in my view, an ‘affected’ party within the meaning of Article 16(3) of the Framework Directive does not mean that the applicant in the main proceedings must automatically be regarded as an ‘affected’ party within the meaning of Article 4(1) and for that reason entitled to a right of appeal against decisions of a regulatory authority which affect it.
Po mojem mnenju dejstvo, da je podjetje, kot je družba Tele2, „stranka, ki jo zadeva preklic obveznosti“ v smislu člena 16(3) okvirne direktive, �e ne pomeni, da je treba tožečo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari avtomatično �teti za „prizadeto“ stranko v smislu člena 4(1), ki bi imela pravico do vlaganja pravnega sredstva zoper odločbe regulativnega organa, s katero je prizadeta.
That is thus a specific effect of Article 4, which is intended to achieve purposes quite distinct from those of Article 16(3) when it confers a right to notification on ‘affected’ parties.
Namen, ki ga želi doseči člen 4, je drugačen od namena, ki izhaja iz člena 16(3), ki določa pravico „prizadetih“ strank do obvestila.
That notice is intended to permit ‘affected’ parties to prepare for the unfavourable situation created by the decision to withdraw the obligations imposed on the undertaking formerly having significant market power, before that withdrawal takes effect.
To obvestilo je namenjeno temu, da se „stranke, ki jih zadeva preklic obveznosti“, �e pred začetkom učinkovanja preklica pripravijo na neugodne posledice, ki bi izhajale iz odločbe o preklicu obveznosti, naloženih podjetju, ki je prej imelo pomembno tržno moč.
It follows that the essential factor in determining whether an undertaking such as
Bistveni dejavnik pri ugotavljanju, ali je določeno podjetje, kot na primer tožeča
Obviously, an undertaking such as Tele2 must, in my opinion, be regarded in this case as a ‘party affected’ within the meaning of Article 16(3) and, consequently, as being entitled to an appropriate period of notice of a decision to withdraw obligations.
Po mojem mnenju je treba podjetje, kot je družba Tele2, v obravnavanem primeru �teti za „stranko, ki jo zadeva preklic obveznosti“ v smislu člena 16(3) in ga je zato treba v primernem roku obvestiti o preklicu obveznosti.
Clearly, the undertaking having significant market power to which the decision withdrawing specific obligations is addressed will be notified of such a decision concerning it and from which it benefits directly.
Podjetje s pomembno tržno močjo, ki so mu bile preklicane posebne obveznosti, bo jasno obve�čeno o tej odločbi, ki ga zadeva in zaradi katere ima neposredno korist.
For that reason, it would be impossible to understand why the Community legislature, in expressly providing that ‘an appropriate period of notice shall be given to parties affected by
Zato ni jasno, zakaj bi zakonodajalec Skupnosti s tem, da je izrecno določil, da je treba „stranke, ki jih zadeva preklic obveznosti, o tem prej obvestiti v primernem roku“, �el tako daleč,
5 — Thus, the Portuguese version uses ‘prejudicadas’ in Article 4(1) and ‘abrangidas’ in Article 16(3).
5 – Portugalska različica za opredelitev strank v navedenih členih 4(1) in 16(3) uporablja pojma „prejudicadas“ in „abrangidas“.
The French version also uses different terms: ‘affecté(e)’ and parties ‘concerné[e]s’.
Francoska različica prav tako uporablja različna pojma „affecté(e)“ in „concerné[e]s“.
Likewise, different terms are used in the Dutch version: ‘getroffen’ and ‘gevolgen’.
Enako tudi nizozemska različica uporablja prav tako različna pojma „getroffen“ in „gevolgen“.
6 — Article 16(3) refers to the undertakings having significant market power to which the decision is addressed.
6 – Odstavek 3 se nana�a na podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo, na katere je naslovljena odločba.
It then mentions parties affected by the withdrawal, entitling them to be notified of the decision.
V odstavku so nato omenjene stranke, ki jih zadeva preklic obveznosti in ki jih je treba o tem obvestiti.
If that obligation to notify was intended to favour only undertakings benefiting from the withdrawal, the most natural thing would have been for the legislature to provide in the following sentence that ‘those undertakings’ (and not the ‘parties affected’) were entitled to be notified of the decision.
Če bi bila ta obveznost obve�čanja namenjena zgolj podjetjem, ki imajo od preklica korist, bi bilo najbolje, da bi to zakonodajalec v stavku določil tako, da je treba „ta podjetja“ (namesto „upo�tevna podjetja“) o tem prej obvestiti v primernem roku.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION regulatory authority’.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION ki omogočajo […], da ima uporabnik ali podjetje, ki zagotavlja elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in/ali storitve, pravico do pritožbe zoper odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa“.
9Independently of these not insignificant changes to the text of Article 4, recital 12 in the preamble, according to which ‘any party who is the subject of a decision by a national regulatory authority should have the right to appeal’ against such a decision, was not modified.
9Neodvisno od teh ne tako nepomembnih sprememb, vnesenih v besedilo člena 4, pa dvanajsta uvodna izjava, ki določa, da „vsaka stranka, za katero velja sklep nacionalnega regulativnega organa, mora imeti pravico do pritožbe zoper ta sklep“, ni bila spremenjena.
the applicant is affected within the meaning of Article 4(1) cannot be the fact that it is an affected party within the terms and for the specific purposes of Article 16(3).
stranka, prizadeto v smislu člena 4(1), ne more biti okoli�čina, da je treba tako podjetje �teti za stranko, ki jo zadeva preklic obveznosti v smislu člena 16(3).
In the absence of any indication from the wording of Article 4(1) as to the scope of the concept of an affected undertaking, the answer to such a question must be based, as the Belgian Government points out in its written observations, on an examination of the purposes and objectives of Article 4, viewed in the context of the Framework Directive.
Ker v besedilu člena 4(1) ni jasne opredelitve prizadetega podjetja, bi bilo treba odgovor opreti na, kot v svojih pisnih stali�čih ugotavlja belgijska vlada, namen in cilje člena 4 glede na vsebino okvirne direktive.
When the text of a Community provision is ambiguous, the meaning of the words the interpretation of which is in dispute must be established by taking account of the context of the provision and the purpose of the rules at issue. 7
Kadar je besedilo določbe Skupnosti dvoumno, je treba pomen besed, če si njihova razlaga nasprotuje, razlagati z upo�tevanjem sobesedila te določbe in cilja, ki ga zadevni predpis zasleduje 7.
First of all, I agree with the Commission, Tele2 and the Belgian Government that the article at issue follows from the principle of effective judicial protection.
Prvič, strinjam se s stali�čem Komisije, družbe Tele2 in belgijske vlade, da zadevni člen pomeni odraz načela učinkovitega sodnega varstva.
The Court has consistently held that that general principle, which underlies the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, requires that ‘individuals must be able to avail themselves of effective judicial protection of the rights they have under the Community legal order’.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča to splo�no načelo, ki izhaja iz skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic, nalaga, da „morajo imeti posamezniki možnost učinkovitega sodnega varstva pravic, ki jih imajo na podlagi pravnega reda Skupnosti“ 10.
10There must therefore be effective judicial scrutiny of all decisions of national authorities refusing the benefit of a right conferred by Community law. 11
Treba je torej, da obstaja sodni nadzor vseh odločb nacionalnih organov, s katerimi se ne priznavajo pravice, ki jih zagotavlja pravo Skupnosti 11.
8The text of that article, as originally proposed by the Commission, was shorter and more limited inasmuch as it provided simply that ‘Member States shall ensure that a mechanism exists … under which a user or undertaking providing electronic communications networks and/or services has the right of appeal against a decision of a national
Besedilo določbe, ki ga je prvotno predlagala Komisija, je bilo kraj�e in je preprosto določalo, da „[d]ržave članice zagotovijo mehanizme,
9 — See the text proposed by the Commission and the Parliament’s amendments in OJ 2001 C 277, pp. 91 and 98.
9 – Glej besedilo, ki ga je predlagala Komisija in amandmaje Parlamenta, v UL C 277, str. 92 in 98.
7 — See, inter alia, Case 803/79 Roudolff [1980] ECR 2015, paragraph 7; Case C-287/98 Linster and Others [2000] ECR I-6917, paragraph 43; Case C-373/00 Adolf Truley [2003] ECR I-1931, paragraph 35.
7 – Glej zlasti sodbe z dne 19. junija 1980 v zadevi Roudolff (803/79, Recueil, str. 2015, točka 7), z dne 19. septembra 2000 v zadevi Linster (C-287/98, Recueil, str.
11 — See Case C-228/98 Dounias [2000] ECR I-577, paragraph 64, and Case C-459/99 MRAX [2002] ECR I-6591, paragraph 101 and the case law cited therein.
I-6917, točka 43) in z dne 27. februarja 2003 v zadevi Adolf Truley (C-373/00, Recueil, str. I-1931, točka 35).
8 — Emphasis added.
8 – Moj poudarek.
See Case C-438/04 Mobistar [2006] ECR I-6675, paragraph 41.
Glej sodbo z dne 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Mobistar (C-438/04, ZOdl., str. I-6675, točka 41).
Other competing undertakings, although affected in their rights flowing from specific obligations imposed, amended or withdrawn in regard to the undertaking having significant market power by a decision of the national regulatory authority, would, unlike the latter undertaking, be denied any right of appeal against such a decision.
To uvodno izjavo je treba razlagati v �ir�em smislu in jo razumeti tako, da bi morala vsaka oseba, kateri se z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa posega v pravice, ki jih zagotavlja pravni red Skupnosti, in ne zgolj oseba, ki je naslovnik odločbe, imeti pravico do pritožbe zoper tako odločbo na podlagi člena 4(1) okvirne direktive 12.
The recital in question must be interpreted in a broader way than its terms would suggest, with the result that any person whose rights under the Community legal order are affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority, and not merely the person to whom the decision is addressed, should have a right of appeal against that decision under Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive. 12
Na podlagi take razlage bi namreč za „prizadete“ stranke lahko �teli zgolj podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo. Ostala konkurenčna podjetja, ki bi bila zaradi odločbe o naloženih, spremenjenih ali preklicanih posebnih obveznosti podjetju s pomembno tržno močjo prizadeta v svojih pravicah, pa za razliko od slednjega podjetja ne bi imela pravice do pritožbe proti tej odločbi.
Secondly, having regard to the general objectives and regulatory principles concerning national regulatory authorities set out in Article 8(2) of the Framework Directive, the objective laid down for regulatory authorities to ‘promote competition in the provision of electronic communications networks, electronic communications
Menim torej, da niti besedilo niti splo�no načelo učinkovitega sodnega varstva, katerega odraz so splo�ni cilji in regulativna načela, ki se nana�ajo na regulativne organe – predvsem spodbujanje učinkovite konkurence – ne upravičujejo razlage, po kateri b i pojem „prizadetega“ podjetja iz člena 4(1) zajemal zgolj podjetja, na katera so odločbe regulativnega organa naslovljene. To ozko razlago sta predlagali avstrijska in slovenska vlada.
services and associated facilities and services’ 13stands out clearly.
Drugič, iz splo�nih ciljev in regulativnih načel iz člena 8(2) okvirne direktive jasno izhaja 13, da regulativni organi spodbujajo konkurenco pri zagotavljanju elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij, elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev in pripadajočih naprav ter storitev.
14 However, as the Danish Government has correctly pointed out in its observations, a strict interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Directive as meaning that it confers a right of appeal only on persons to whom the decision in question is addressed would be difficult to reconcile with such an objective of promoting competition.
14 Vendar pa, kot je v svojih stali�čih pravilno poudarila danska vlada, bi bila ozka razlaga člena 4(1) direktive, na podlagi katere bi imele pravico do pritožbe zgolj osebe, na
In its judgment in Connect Austria, 15 the Court specifically went in the direction of a non-restrictive interpretation of Article 4 of the Framework Directive, in the light of
Sodi�če je v sodbi z dne 22. maja 2003 v zadevi Connect Austria 15 pri razlagi določbe, ki bi jo lahko utemeljeno �teli za predhodnico
12 — It is worth pointing out in this context that Article 4(1) refers to users or undertakings affected by a decision adopted by a regulatory authority, and not to users or undertakings to which such a decision is addressed.
12 – V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti na besedilo člena 4(1), ki omenja uporabnike ali podjetja, prizadete z odločbo regulativnega organa, in ne uporabnike ali podjetja, na katera je naslovljena ta odločba.
13 — See Article 8(2) of the Framework Directive.
13 – Glej tudi prvo uvodno izjavo okvirne direktive, ki kaže na pomembnost „učinkovite konkurence v telekomunikacijskem sektorju v času prehoda z monopola na popolno konkurenco“.
See also, on the interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive, Mobistar, cited above, paragraphs 40 and 43.
Glej tudi, glede razlage člena 4(1) okvirne direktive, zgoraj navedeno sodbo Mobistar, točki 40 in 43.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION the principle of effective judicial protection, when it interpreted a provision which may rightly be regarded as a predecessor of Article 4 of the Framework Directive.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION določbe iz člena 4 okvirne direktive, zavzelo stali�če, ki utemeljuje �ir�o razlago člena 4 okvirne direktive v zvezi z načelom učinko -vitega pravnega varstva.
The provision in question was Article 5a(3) of Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications services through the implementation of open network provision, 16 as amended by Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997.
Sodi�če je odločalo o razlagi določbe člena 5a(3) Direktive Sveta 90/387/EGS z dne 28. junija 1990 o vzpostavitvi notranjega trga za telekomunikacijske storitve z uvedbo zagotavljanja odprtosti omrežij 16, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/51/ES z dne 6. oktobra 1997 17.
17 with Directive 90/387 and that the rights of individuals are effectively protected, national courts must determine whether the relevant provisions of their national law provide individuals with a right of appeal against decisions of the national regulatory authority which satisfies the criteria laid down in Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387’.
strank“. Zaključilo je, da „morajo nacionalna sodi�ča, da bi zagotovila, da se nacionalno pravo razlaga v skladu z Direktivo 90/387 in da so pravice posameznika učinkovito varovane, preizkusiti, ali zadevne določbe nacionalnega prava posameznikom zagotavljajo pravico do pritožbe zoper odločbe nacionalnega regulativnega organa, kar ustreza merilom iz člena 5a(3) Direktive 90/387“.
19If national law cannot be applied in such a way as to comply with the requirements of Article 5a(3), a national court or tribunal which would be competent to hear appeals against decisions of the national regulatory authority if it was not prevented from doing so by a provision of national law which explicitly excluded its competence has the obligation to disapply that provision. 20
19Če določbe nacionalnega prava niso skladne z določbo direktive, nacionalno sodi�če, ki je pristojno za odločanje o pritožbah zoper odločbe nacionalnega regulativnega organa in če mu katerakoli določba nacionalnega prava izrecno ne odvzema te pristojnosti, ne sme uporabiti teh določb 20.
As the Commission and Tele2 pointed out in their observations, the Court appears to have implicitly recognised that the right of appeal provided for in Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387 must also be extended to certain concerned third parties to which, like Connect Austria, the regulatory authorities’ decisions were not addressed although they were in fact affected by those decisions. 21However, I consider that the fact
Tako kot v tej zadevi je v prej omenjeni zadevi tožbo vložila tretja stranka. Sodi�če je najprej poudarilo, da so države članice v vsakem primeru odgovorne za zagotavljanje učinkovitega varstva „individualnih pravic, ki izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti“ 18in da člen 5a(3) Direktive 90/387 določa, da „države članice poskrbijo, da so na nacionalni ravni na voljo učinkoviti mehanizmi, po katerih ima vsaka stranka, ki je prizadeta z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa, pravico do pritožbe zoper odločbo pri pritožbenem organu, ki je neodvisen od udeleženih