natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Such proceedings have no connection with subscriber billing or interconnection payments.
Taki ukrepi pregona nimajo nobene zveze z zaračunavanjem naročnikom ali s plačili za medsebojne povezave.
37 — See, to that effect, point 2.8. of Opinion 1/2003 of the Data Protection Working Party on the storage of traffic data for billing purposes (WP 69 of 29 January 2003).
37 — Glej v tem smislu točko 2.8. stali�ča delovne skupine za varstvo posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov o shranjevanju podatkov o prometu za zaračunavanje naročnikom (WP 69 z dne 29. januarja 2003).
Article 6(2), (3) and (5) of Directive 2002/58, expressly mentioned as exceptions in Article 6(1), are not an appropriate basis for overriding the prohibition on processing under Article 6(1) by communication to Promusicae.
Člen 6(2) Direktive 2002/58 kot izjemo dopu�ča obdelavo teh podatkov o prometu, če in dokler so potrebni za zaračunavanje
Directive 2002/58.
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-275/06 s členom 6(6) Direktive 2002/58.
Under that provision, it is possible for competent bodies to be informed of traffic data in conformity with applicable legislation with a view to settling disputes, in particular interconnection or billing disputes.
V skladu z njim imajo pristojni organi možnost, da so seznanjeni s podatki o prometu v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo, in sicer za re�evanje sporov, zlasti sporov v zvezi z medsebojnim povezovanjem ali zaračunavanjem.
The exemption under Article 6(3) of Directive of 2002/58 is equally irrelevant.
Prav tako ni primerna izjema v skladu s členom 6(3) Direktive 2002/58.
It allows processing by the access provider for the purpose of marketing electronic communications services or for the provision of value added services only after users have given their consent.
Ta dovoljuje obdelavo s strani ponudnika dostopa za trženje elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev ali zagotovitev storitev z dodano vrednostjo le ob privolitvi uporabnika.
Finally, Promusicae may not rely on Article 6(5) of Directive 2002/58 either.
Končno se Promusicae ne more opreti niti na člen 6(5) Direktive 2002/58.
Under that provision, third parties may process traffic data under the authority of the access provider for specific purposes, in particular that of combating fraud.
V skladu z njim lahko tretje osebe obdelujejo podatke o prometu pod nadzorom ponudnika dostopa za določene namene, zlasti za odkrivanje prevar.
The 29th recital in the preamble makes it clear in this respect that fraud means unpaid use of the electronic communications service.
V zvezi s tem devetindvajseta. uvodna izjava določa, da za prevaro �teje neplačana uporaba elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev.
Promusicae does not act under the authority of Telefónica and the infringement of copyrights cannot be regarded as fraud in that sense.
Promusicae ne ravna niti pod nadzorom Telefónice niti ni mogoče kr�itve avtorskih pravic �teti za prevaro v tem smislu.
Determination of the dispute as to whether Telefónica is entitled and obliged to disclose those data to Promusicae does not require the court to be acquainted with them.
Okoli�čina, da Promusicae zahteva podatke o prometu, da bi lahko začela pravdne postopke proti konkretnim uporabnikom, prav tako ne omogoča sporočanja v skladu s členom 6(6) Direktive 2002/58.
In the view of Promusicae, the communication and use of traffic data for the enforcement of copyright claims in the civil courts is however permissible under Article 6(6) of
Promusicae meni, da sta sporočanje in uporaba podatkov o prometu za civilnopravno uveljavitev avtorskopravnih zahtevkov vsekakor dopustna v skladu
In addition to the exceptions under Article 6(2), (3) and (5) and under Article 15(1), which are expressly mentioned in Article 6(1) and relatively clearly defined, a new, almost limitless exception would be introduced.
K izjemam, ki so izrecno navedene in relativno jasno začrtane v členu 6(1), v skladu s členom 6(2)(3) in (5) ter v skladu s členom 15(1), bi bila dodatno uvedena nova, skoraj brezmejna izjema.
38According to the wording of Article 6, the user of electronic communications services does not have to reckon with that exception.
38 V skladu z besedilom člena 6 uporabniku elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev ni treba računati s to izjemo.
A look at the purposes of storage of traffic data under Article 6 of Directive 2002/58 points even more in favour of the restriction of communication.
Upo�tevanje namenov shranjevanja podatkov o prometu v skladu s členom 6 Direktive 2002/58 celo �e močneje potrjuje omejitev sporočanja.
Only the purposes of the storage can justify the communication of the data, as provided for in Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 95/46.
Le nameni shranjevanja lahko v smislu člena 6(1)(b) Direktive 95/46 upravičijo njihovo predložitev.
Those purposes are, in the case of traffic data under Article 6 of Directive 2002/58, the operation of the communications network, subscriber billing, marketing and value added services with the consent of the user and — over and above those — processing under authority for customer enquiries and fraud detection in the abovementioned 40sense.
Pri podatkih o prometu so ti nameni v skladu s členom 6 Direktive 2002/58 obratovanje komunikacijskega omrežja, zaračunavanje naročnikom, po privolitvi uporabnika trženje ter zagotavljanje storitev z dodano vrednostjo in – poleg tega – obdelava pod nadzorom zaradi povpra�evanja porabnikov in za odkrivanje prevar v že 40 navedenem smislu.
Dispute settlement is not an intrinsic purpose of storing traffic data, but only allows the competent authorities to be informed.
Re�evanje sporov ni samostojni namen shranjevanja podatkov o prometu, ampak dovoljuje le seznanitev pristojnih organov.
It can therefore refer only to disputes which are connected with the purposes of the storage.
Nana�a se torej lahko le na spore, ki so povezani s shranjevanjem.
41 However, the provision of evidence for contentious proceedings with third parties is not an identifiable purpose of storage.
41Zagotavljanje dokazov za pravdne postopke s tretjimi osebami pa ni razpoznavni namen shranjevanja.
Communication of the desired traffic data to Promusicae can therefore not be based on Article 6(6) of Directive 2002/58.
Zato sporočanja podatkov o prometu, ki jih želi Promusicae, ni mogoče opreti na člen 6(6) Direktive 2002/58.
At the same time, such an exception would be very extensive and could therefore not be accepted as proportionate to the aims pursued.
Hkrati bi bila ta izjema zelo daljnosežna in je zato ne bi bilo mogoče �teti za sorazmerno glede na sledene cilje.
The user would in principle have to reckon continually — not only in the case of copyright infringements — with the fact that his traffic data were being disclosed to third parties who, for some reason, wanted to start contentious proceedings against him.
Uporabnik bi moral načelno vedno – ne le pri kr�itvi avtorskih pravic – računati s tem, da bodo njegovi podatki o prometu sporočeni tretjim osebam, ki želijo iz kakr�nega koli razloga zoper njega začeti pravdni postopek.
It is inconceivable that such disputes could in any event be based on a pressing social need as referred to in the caselaw on Article 8 of the ECHR. 39
Ni verjetno, da taki spori v vsakem primeru temeljijo na prepričljivi družbeni potrebi v smislu sodne prakse k členu 8 EKČP. 39
40 — See point 72 above.
40 — Glej zgoraj navedeno točko 72.
38 — See my Opinion in Case C-350/02 Commission v Netherlands [2004] ECR I-6213, point 71, on the interpretation of Article 6(4) of Directive 97/66.
38 — Glede razlage člena 6(4) Direktive 97/66 glej moje sklepne predloge z dne 29. januarja 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Nizozemski (C-350/02, Recueil, str. I-6213, točka 71).
41 — In that respect, my view on ‘the diversity of disputes’, stated in a different context in the Opinion in Commission v Netherlands, cited in footnote 38, point 81, should not be over-interpreted.
41 — V tem smislu se moji izjavi glede „raznolikosti sporov“ v neki drugi zvezi v opombi 38 navedenih sklepnih predlogih Komisija proti Nizozemski, točka 81, ne sme z razlago dodajati novega pomena.
39 — See point 54 above.
39 — Glej zgoraj navedeno točko 54.
(c) Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 security and defence.
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-275/06 c) Člen 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 nalno obrambo.
The stored data must expressly not be communicated for other purposes.
Shranjenih podatkov se izrecno ne sme sporočati za druge namene.
It may be doubted whether the storage of traffic data of all users without any concrete suspicions 42 — laying in a stock, as it were — is compatible with fundamental rights, 43 but the Spanish rules are in any case compatible with the wording of Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58.
Mogoče je dvomiti o tem, ali je shranjevanje podatkov o prometu vseh uporabnikov – v določeni meri na zalogo – skladno s temeljnimi pravicami, 42�e zlasti ker se to zgodi brez konkretnega suma.
Furthermore, Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 allows the restriction of the rights under Article 6(1).
Dalje člen 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 dovoljuje omejitev pravic iz člena 6(1).
Such a restriction must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society to safeguard national security (that is, State security), defence, public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communication system, as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC.
Taka omejitev mora v skladu s členom 13(1) Direktive 95/46 predstavljati potreben, primeren in sorazmeren ukrep znotraj demokratične družbe za za�čito nacionalne varnosti (to je državne varnosti), obrambe, javne varnosti ali za preprečevanje, preiskovanje, odkrivanje in pregon kaznivih dejanj ali nedovoljene uporabe elektronskih komunikacijskih sistemov.
43 — See the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (COM(2005) 438 final), OJ 2005 C 298, p.
42 — Glej mnenje evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov k predlogu Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o hrambi podatkov, obdelanih v zvezi z zagotavljanjem javnih elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev, in spremembi Direktive 2002/58/ES ((COM(2005) 438 konč.), UL 2005, C 298, str.
1, and the Opinions of the Data Protection Working Party of 21 October 2005, 4/2005 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (COM(2005) 438 final of 21 September 2005) and of 25 March 2006, 3/2006 on Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC.
1), ter mnenji delovne skupine za varstvo posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov z dne 21. oktobra 2005, 4/2005, k predlogu Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o hrambi podatkov, obdelanih v zvezi z zagotavljanjem javnih elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev, in spremembi Direktive 2002/58/ES (COM(2005) 438 konč. z dne 21. septembra 2005), in z dne 25. marca 2006, 3/2006, k Direktivi 2006/24/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o hrambi podatkov, pridobljenih ali obdelanih v zvezi z zagotavljanjem javno dostopnih elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev ali javnih komunikacijskih omrežij, in spremembi Direktive 2002/58/ES.
44 — See Case C-408/95 Eurotunnel and Others [1997] ECR I-6315, paragraph 33 et seq.
44 — Glej sodbo z dne 11. novembra 1997 v zadevi Eurotunnel in drugi (C-408/95, Recueil, str. I-6315, točka 33 in naslednja).
Spain has made use of that derogation and in Article 12(1) of Ley 34/2002 has imposed on access providers the duty to retain traffic and connection data.
Španija je to izjemo uporabila in ponudnikom dostopa v členu 12(1) Ley 34/2002 naložila obveznost, naj hranijo podatke o prometu in povezavah.
Communication is however expressly restricted to criminal investigations, safeguarding public
Sporočanje pa je izrecno omejeno na kazenskopravne preiskave in na za�čito javne varnosti ter nacio-
PROMUSICAE duces a duty of retention under Community law.
PROMUSICAE zaradi Direktive 2006/24, ki uvaja skupnostnopravno obveznost shranjevanja.
45 However, if the Court wished to examine the permissibility of retention in the present case as a preliminary question, it would certainly be necessary to re-open the oral procedure in order to give the parties entitled under Article 23 of the Statute to make submissions the opportunity to do so.
45Če pa želi Sodi�če že v obravnavanem primeru kot predhodno vpra�anje preučiti dopustnost shranjevanja, bi bilo gotovo treba na novo razpisati obravnavo, da bi upravičenci v skladu s členom 23 Statuta lahko podali stali�ča.
Under Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, two types of bases for exceptions are expressly mentioned, namely, on the one hand, in the first four alternatives, national security (that is, State security), defence, public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences and, on the other, in the fifth alternative, unauthorised use of the electronic communication system.
V okviru člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 sta izrecno določeni dve podlagi za izjeme: po eni strani v prvih �tirih možnostih nacionalna varnost (to je državna varnost), obramba, javna varnost ter preprečevanje, preiskovanje, odkrivanje in pregon kaznivih dejanj ter po drugi strani nedovoljena uporaba elektronskih komunikacijskih sistemov v skladu s peto možnostjo.
In addition, Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 refers to Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46, which contains further grounds of exception.
Poleg tega se člen 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 sklicuje na člen 13(1) Direktive 95/46, ki določa nadaljnje razloge za izjeme.
Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 in conjunction with Article 13(1)(g) of Directive 95/46
Člen 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 v povezavi s členom 13(1)(g) Direktive 95/46
In essence, the question which arises here, however, is whether Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 permits the communication of the desired — retained — data to Promusicae.
V bistvu pa se tu zastavlja vpra�anje, ali je na podlagi člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 dopustno sporočanje želenih – na zalogo shranjenih – podatkov Promusicae.
If communication were permissible under data protection law, it would need to be examined whether the directives mentioned by the referring court — and the property of the holders of copyrights protected under them — require that that possibility also be used.
Če bi bilo sporočanje z vidika prava varstva podatkov dopustno, bi bilo namreč treba preučiti, ali direktive, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če – in v tem okviru varovana lastnina imetnikov avtorskih pravic –, zahtevajo, da se to možnost tudi uporabi.
In that case, the Spanish courts would be obliged to use any available margin of interpretation in order to facilitate such communication. 46
V tem primeru bi bila �panska sodi�ča zavezana izkoristiti morebitne manevrske prostore za razlago, da bi omogočila sporočanje. 46
45 — The action in Case C-301/06 Ireland v Council and Parliament (Notice in OJ 2006 C 237, p.
45 — Trenutno �e ni odločitve v zvezi s tožbo Irska proti Svetu in Parlamentu (C-301/06, obvestilo v UL 2006, C 237, str. 5).
Ireland claims that Directive 2006/24 should be annulled on the ground that the wrong legal basis was chosen.
Irska zahteva, naj se Direktiva 2006/24 razglasi za nično zaradi neustrezne izbire pravne podlage.
However, the action does not cover the question whether retention is compatible with fundamental rights.
Nasprotno se tožba ne raz�irja na vpra�anje, ali je shranjevanje skladno s temeljnimi pravicami.
A first basis for communication could result from Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 in conjunction with Article 13(1)(g) of Directive 95/46.
Prva podlaga za sporočanje bi lahko izhajala iz člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 v povezavi s členom 13(1)(g) Direktive 95/46.
Article 13(1)(g) of Directive 95/46 allows the communication of personal data for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Člen 13(1)(g) Direktive 95/46 dovoljuje sporočanje osebnih podatkov za za�čito pravic in svobo�čin drugih.
Unlike the grounds of exception in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46, this ground is admittedly not expressly listed in Article 15(1) of
Ta razlog sicer, drugače kot drugi razlogi za izjeme iz člena 13(1) Direktive 95/46, ni izrecno naveden v členu 15(1) Direktive 2002/58, vendar pa člen
46 — See Lindqvist, cited in footnote 32, paragraph 87.
46 — Glej v opombi 32 navedeno sodbo Lindqvist, točka 87.
Directive 2002/58, although Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, in the German version, does allow restrictions ‘in accordance with Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46’.
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-275/06 nejasnega „v skladu“ se sklicuje v obliki „kot je predvideno v členu 13(1) Direktive 95/46“. 48
German version. Instead of the ambiguous ‘gemäß’ (‘in accordance with’), the reference is made in the form ‘as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46’.
15(1) Direktive 2002/58 v skladu z nem�ko različico dovoljuje omejitve, ki so „v skladu s čle nom 13(1) Direktive 95/46“.
48That is based on a deliberate decision during the legislative procedure.
To temelji na zavestni odločitvi v zakonodajnem postopku.
As the Commission points out, when it first adopted that rule in Directive 97/66, the Council refrained from incorporating the grounds of exception in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46 in their entirety and instead chose the present, differentiated rule. 49
Kot poudarja Komisija, se je Svet namreč pri prvem sprejetju tega pravila v Direktivi 97/66 oddaljil od tega, da bi razloge za izjeme iz člena 13(1) Direktive 95/46 v celoti prevzel, in je namesto tega izbral obravnavano, razlikovalno pravilo. 49
Viewed in isolation, that could be understood as a reference to all the grounds of exception under Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46.
Gledano samo zase bi se to lahko razumelo kot napotilo na vse razloge za izjeme v skladu s členom 13(1) Direktive 95/46. 47
47However, that is contradicted simply by the fact that Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 itself mentions grounds of exception which are intended to allow a restriction ‘in accordance with Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46’.
Proti temu pa govori že dejstvo, da člen 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 navaja razloge za izjeme, ki naj „v skladu s členom 13(1) Direktive 95/46“ dovoljujejo omejitev.
Those grounds correspond only in part to the grounds in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46 and do not include the exception for the rights of others, mentioned under (g).
Ti razlogi le deloma ustrezajo razlogom iz člena 13(1) Direktive 95/46, in ne vsebujejo izjeme za pravice drugih, ki je navedena v točki (g).
Consequently, the grounds mentioned in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46 are applicable in the electronic communications sector only in so far as they are expressly included in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58.
Zato veljajo v členu 13(1) Direktive 95/46 navedeni razlogi na področju elektronskih komunikacij le, če so izrecno prevzeti v člen 15(1) Direktive 2002/58.
That conclusion is also supported by the speciality of Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 as compared with Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46.
Ta sklep potrjuje tudi posebnost čle -na 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 v razmerju do člena 13(1) Direktive 95/46.
50 The latter applies to all personal data irrespective of the context in which they arise.
50 Slednji se uporablja za vse osebne podatke ne glede na to, v kak�nem kontekstu se pojavijo.
It is thus relatively general since it has to be applied to a large number of very different situations.
Torej je sorazmerno splo�en, ker naj bi se uporabljal v veliko popolnoma različnih okoli�činah. 51
That rule is more clearly apparent from other language versions than from the
To pravilo jasneje izhaja iz drugih jezikovnih različic, kot je nem�ka. Namesto
49 — See footnote 6 to the Commission’s written observations.
49 — Glej opombo 6 pisne vloge Komisije.
517 et seq.), takes the view that the German transposition of this exception allows the communication of the traffic data of copyright infringers to the rightholders.
517 in naslednja), meni, da nem�ki prenos te izjeme dovoljuje sporočanje podatkov o prometu, ki se nana�ajo na kr�itelje avtorskih pravic, imetnikom pravic.
PROMUSICAE electronic communications and is therefore based on a comparatively precise assessment of the extent to which communication of personal traffic data interferes with the fundamental right to data protection.
Prvi pa se, nasprotno, konkretno nana�a na osebne podatke, do katerih pride v okviru elektronske komunikacije, in tako temelji na razmeroma natančni oceni o tem, kako močno sporočanje podatkov o prometu posega v temeljno pravico do varstva podatkov.
to the conduct in question, namely use for unauthorised purposes and use contrary to the system.
uporabo, ki je v nasprotju s sistemom.
Infringement of copyright would certainly be an unauthorised purpose.
Za nedovoljen namen bi gotovo lahko �teli tudi kr�itev avtorskih pravic.
When such an infringement is committed, the communication system may nevertheless be used as intended, namely for loading data from other computers which are connected to the Internet.
Pri tem pa je mogoče komunikacijski sistem uporabljati v skladu z namenom, namreč za nalaganje podatkov z drugih računalnikov, ki so priključeni na internet.
The communication system does not need to be manipulated — in ways contrary to the system — by, for example, obtaining passwords for other persons’ computers or simulating a false identity to the external computer. 52
Za to ni treba – v nasprotju s sistemom – manipulirati s komunikacijskim sistemom tako, da bi se na primer priskrbela gesla za tuje računalnike ali da bi se pred tujim računalnikom nastopalo z napačno identiteto. 52
Consequently, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others under Article 13(1)(g) of Directive 95/46 cannot justify the communication of personal traffic data.
Zato za�čita pravic in svobo�čin drugih v skladu s členom 13(1)(g) Direktive 95/46 ne more upravičiti sporočanja osebnih podatkov o prometu.
Unauthorised use of the electronic communication system
Nedovoljena uporaba elektronskih komunikacijskih sistemov
In the Commission’s view, the meaning intended in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 is use contrary to the system, jeopardising the integrity or security of the communication system.
Komisija meni, da je v členu 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 mi�ljena uporaba v nasprotju s sistemom, ki ogroža integriteto ali varnost komunikacijskega sistema.
That, it says, also follows from the drafting history, since the concept was introduced in Directive 97/66 for ensuring correct frequency use.
To naj bi izhajalo tudi iz zgodovine nastajanja, saj naj bi bil pojem vnesen v Direktivo 97/66 zaradi zagotovitve pravilne rabe frekvenc.
A further possible basis for communication could be unauthorised use of the electronic communication system, which is the fifth alternative in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58.
Dalje kot podlaga za sporočanje pride v po�tev peta možnost iz člena 15(1) Direkti- ve 2002/58, to je nedovoljena uporaba elektronskih komunikacijskih sistemov.
That narrow interpretation of the concept of unauthorised use accords with the secrecy of communications, protected under Article 5 of Directive 2002/58. Use
Ta ozka razlaga pojma nedovoljene uporabe ustreza varovani zaupnosti sporočil, v skladu s členom 5 Direktive 2002/58.
52 — Use contrary to the system would normally also cover acts punishable under Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA of 24 February 2005 on attacks against information systems (OJ 2005 L 69, p. 67).
52 — Za uporabo v nasprotju s sistemom gre verjetno redno tudi pri dejanjih, ki so kazniva v skladu z Okvirnim sklepom Sveta 2005/222/PNZ z dne 24. februarja 2005 o napadih na informacijske sisteme (UL L 69, str. 67).