natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the present case, the national court asks whether the provisions of the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code; ‘the BGB’) under which, in cases where defective goods are replaced, the seller may require the purchaser to pay compensation for the use of those goods are compatible with Direct- ive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees 2(‘Directive 1999/44’ or ‘the Directive’).
Predložitveno sodi�če v tej zadevi spra�uje, ali so določbe nem�kega civilnega zakonika, ki prodajalcu omogočajo, da ob zamenjavi blaga z napako od kupca zahteva plačilo denarnega nadomestila za uporabo tega blaga, v skladu z Direktivo 1999/44/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. maja 1999 o nekaterih vidikih prodaje potro -�ni�kega blaga in z njim povezanih garancij 2(v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 1999/44).
This is the first time the Court has been asked to interpret Direct- ive 1999/44 within the framework of a reference for a preliminary ruling.
Sodi�če ES bo s tem prvič razlagalo Direktivo 1999/44 v okviru vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
Article 3(1)(t) EC provides that the activities of the Community are to include, as provided in the Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein, a contribution to the strengthening of consumer protection.
Člen 3(1)(t) ES določa, da dejavnosti Skupnosti v skladu z določbami te pogodbe in v njej opredeljenim časovnim razporedom vključujejo prispevek h krepitvi varstva potro�nikov.
Article 153(1) EC provides: of any new development based on scientific facts.
Prvi odstavek člena 153 ES določa: pri čemer zlasti upo�teva nova dognanja na podlagi znanstvenih dejstev.
‘In order to promote the interests of consumers and to ensure a high level of consumer protection, the Community shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests.’
„Zato da bi podprli interese potro�nikov in zagotovili visoko raven varstva potro�nikov, Skupnost prispeva k varovanju zdravja, varnosti in ekonomskih interesov potro�nikov, pa tudi k spodbujanju njihove pravice do obve�čenosti, izobraževanja in samoorganiziranja za za�čito njihovih interesov.“
Article 95 EC provides:
Člen 95 ES določa:
‘1. … [T]he Council shall … adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.
„1. […] Svet […] sprejme ukrepe za približevanje določb zakonov in drugih predpisov v državah članicah, katerih predmet je vzpostavitev in delovanje notranjega trga.
The second recital in the preamble to Directive 1999/44 states that ‘the internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is guaranteed; … it implies that consumers resident in one Member State should be free to purchase goods in the territory of another Member State on the basis of a uniform minimum set of fair rules governing the sale of consumer goods’.
Druga uvodna izjava Direktive 1999/44 poudarja, da „notranji trg predstavlja prostor brez notranjih meja, v katerem je zagotovljen prosti pretok blaga, oseb, storitev in kapitala“, in da prost pretok blaga pomeni tudi, „da lahko potro�niki, rezidenti v eni državi članici, prosto nakupujejo v drugi državi članici na podlagi enotnih minimalnih predpisov, ki urejajo prodajo potro�ni�kega blaga“.
The Commission, in its proposals envisaged in paragraph 1 concerning … consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular
Komisija ima v svojih predlogih iz odstavka 1, ki zadevajo […] varstvo potro�nikov, za izhodi�če visoko raven varstva,
The fourth recital in the preamble to the Directive states that ‘consumers who are keen to benefit from the large market by purchasing goods in Member States other than their State of residence play a fundamental role in the completion of the internal market; …’.
Četrta uvodna izjava te direktive navaja, da „potro�nik, ki želi izkoristiti prednosti notranjega trga z nakupovanjem blaga v državi članici, ki ni njegova država prebivali�ča, igra ključno vlogo pri oblikovanju notranjega trga“.
According to the fifth recital, ‘the creation of a common set of minimum rules of consumer law, valid no matter where goods are purchased within the Community, will strengthen consumer confidence and enable consumers to make the most of the internal market’.
Peta uvodna izjava določa, da „bo oblikovanje skupnih minimalnih pravil na področju prava varstva potro�nikov, ki velja ne glede ne kraj nakupa blaga v Skupnosti, okrepilo zaupanje potro�nikov in jim omogočilo, da bolje izkoristijo prednosti notranjega trga“.
In the case of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity free of charge by repair or replacement, in accordance with paragraph 3, or to have an appropriate reduction made in the price or the contract rescinded with regard to those goods, in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6.
V primeru neskladnosti ima potro�nik pravico zahtevati neodplačno vzpostavitev skladnosti blaga s pogodbo, in sicer popravilo ali zamenjavo v skladu z odstavkom 3, ali zahtevati znižanje kupnine ali odstop od pogodbe glede tega blaga v skladu z odstavkoma 5 in 6.
In the first place, the consumer may require the seller to repair the goods or he may require the seller to replace them, in either case free of charge, unless this is impossible or disproportionate.
Potro�nik lahko od prodajalca najprej zahteva neodplačno popravilo ali neodplačno zamenjavo blaga, razen če je to nemogoče ali nesorazmerno.
The 15th recital states that ‘Member States may provide that any reimbursement to the consumer may be reduced to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods since they were delivered to him; … the detailed arrangements whereby rescission of the contract is effected may be laid down in national law’.
Petnajsta uvodna izjava omogoča, da „lahko države članice predvidijo, da se nadomestilo potro�niku lahko zniža, da bi se tako upo�tevala potro�nikova raba blaga od dobave naprej“, in da „lahko nacionalno pravo določi podrobnej�o ureditev odstopa od pogodbe“.
A remedy shall be deemed to be disproportionate if it imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison with the alternative remedy, are unreasonable, taking into account:
Sredstvo �teje za nesorazmerno, če v primerjavi z drugim sredstvom prodajalcu povzroči nesprejemljive stro�ke, pri čemer se upo�tevajo:
The 24th recital states that ‘Member States should be allowed to adopt or maintain in force more stringent provisions in the field covered by this Directive to ensure an even higher level of consumer protection’.
Štiriindvajseta uvodna izjava dopu�ča, da „lahko države članice na področju, ki ga ureja ta direktiva, sprejmejo ali ohranijo strožje določbe, da se zagotovi vi�ja raven varstva potro�nikov“.
— the value the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity,
– vrednost, ki bi jo blago imelo v primeru skladnosti,
Article 3 of the Directive, which governs the rights of consumers, provides as follows:
Člen 3 Direktive 1999/44 ureja pravice potro�nika:
— the significance of the lack of conformity, and
– pomen neskladnosti s pogodbo in
The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered.
Prodajalec je odgovoren potro�niku za vsako neskladnost s pogodbo, ki obstaja v času dobave blaga.
— whether the alternative remedy could be completed without significant inconvenience to the consumer.
vpra�anje, ali bi lahko potro�nik brez znatnih neprijetnosti uporabil drugo sredstvo.
— if the seller has not completed the remedy without significant inconvenience to the consumer.
– če prodajalec ni uporabil sredstva brez znatnih neprijetnosti za potro�nika.
Any repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required the goods.
Vsako popravilo ali zamenjava mora biti opravljeno v razumnem roku in brez znatnih neprijetnosti za potro�nika, pri čemer se upo�tevata vrsta blaga in namen, za katerega je potro�nik blago zahteval.
The terms “free of charge” in paragraphs 2 and 3 refer to the necessary costs incurred to bring the goods into conformity, particularly the cost of postage, labour and materials.
Pojem ‚neodplačno‘ v odstavkih 2 in 3 zajema vse stro�ke, potrebne za vzpostavitev skladnosti s pogodbo, zlasti stro�ke po�iljanja, dela in materiala.
The first sentence of Article 5(1) of the Directive provides that ‘[t]he seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods’.
Prvi stavek člena 5(1) Direktive 1999/44 opredeljuje, da je prodajalec „odgovoren po členu 3, če se neskladnost pokaže v dveh letih od dobave blaga“.
The consumer may require an appropriate reduction of the price or have the contract rescinded:
Potro�nik lahko zahteva ustrezno znižanje kupnine ali odstopi od pogodbe,
Under Article 8(2) of the Directive, Member States may ‘adopt or maintain in force more stringent provisions, compatible with the Treaty in the field covered by this Directive, to ensure a higher level of consumer protection’.
Člen 8(2) Direktive 1999/44 dovoljuje, da lahko države članice „na področju, ki ga ureja ta direktiva, sprejmejo ali ohranijo strožje določbe, ki so združljive s Pogodbo, da zagotovijo vi�jo raven varstva potro�nikov“.
— if the consumer is entitled to neither repair nor replacement, or
– če potro�nik ni upravičen niti do popravila niti do zamenjave, ali
— if the seller has not completed the remedy within a reasonable time, or
Direktiva 1999/44 je bila v nem�ko pravo prenesena v okviru reforme nem�kega drža- če prodajalec ni uporabil sredstva v razumnem roku, ali
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-404/06
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI V. – ZADEVA C-404/06 vljanskega zakonika (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch; v nadaljevanju: BGB).
Paragraph 439 (‘Subsequent performance’) of the BGB provides as follows: significant inconvenience to the purchaser.
Člen 439 BGB, naslovljen „Naknadna izpolnitev“, določa:
Paragraph 346 of the BGB, which governs the effects of termination of contracts, provides as follows:
Člen 346 BGB, ki ureja učinke odstopa, se glasi:
In that regard, account must be taken in particular of the value that the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity, the significance of the lack of conformity, and whether the alternative remedy could be effected without
Pri tem je treba upo�tevati zlasti vrednost stvari brez napake, pomen napake ter vpra�anje, ali se lahko druga vrsta naknadne izpolnitve uporabi brez večje �kode za kupca. V tem
(3) if, in the case of a statutory right of termination, the deterioration or destruction has occurred in the hands of the person entitled, even though he has taken the care that he customarily exercises in relation to his own affairs.
če je prejeti predmet potro�il, odsvojil, obremenil, predelal ali preoblikoval, če je v primeru pravice do odstopa po zakonu poslab�anje ali uničenje nastalo pri upravičencu, čeprav je ta ravnal s tako skrbnostjo, s kakr�no običajno ravna v svojih zadevah.
If the contract specifies a counter-perform-ance, such counter-performance shall be taken as a basis for calculation of the compensation for value; if compensation is to be paid for the benefit deriving from a loan, it shall be sufficient to show that the value of such benefit was lower.
Če je v pogodbi predvidena nasprotna dajatev, se vrednost denarnega nadomestila izračuna na njeni podlagi; če je treba vrniti denarno nadomestilo za koristi, pridobljene zaradi uporabe posojila, se lahko dokaže, da je bila vrednost koristi nižja.
Paragraph 347 of the BGB, which concerns benefits and expenditure after termination, provides as follows:
Člen 347 BGB, ki se nana�a na koristi in stro�ke po odstopu, določa:
If, contrary to the rules of proper management, the debtor has failed to obtain any benefits even though it would have been possible for him to do so, he must compensate the creditor for their value.
„(1) Če dolžnik v nasprotju s pravilom o običajni uporabi ni pridobil koristi, čeprav bi jih lahko, mora upniku plačati denarno nadomestilo.
In the case of termination based on a statutory right, the person entitled must display with regard to the benefits only the standard of care which he customarily exercises in relation to his own affairs.
V primeru pravice do odstopa po zakonu upravičenec odgovarja le za tako skrbnost, s kakr�no običajno ravna v svojih zadevah.
(2) in so far as the creditor is responsible for the deterioration or destruction, or in so far as the damage would also have occurred in his hands;
(2) Če dolžnik vrne predmet, plača denarno nadomestilo, če pa je njegova dolžnost plačila denarnega nadomestila izključena na podlagi če je za poslab�anje ali uničenje odgovoren upnik ali če bi tudi njemu nastala �koda,
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-404/06 excluded pursuant to points 1 or 2 of Paragraph 346(3), he must be reimbursed for necessary expenditure.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI V. – ZADEVA C-404/06 člena 346(3), prva ali druga alinea, se mu povrnejo nujni stro�ki.
Other expenditure must be reimbursed in so far as the creditor is enriched by it.’
Ostali stro�ki se mu vrnejo le, če je upnik z njimi obogaten.“
On the basis of authorisation from the purchaser specifically for that purpose, the Bundesverband brought proceedings against Quelle. It claimed that Quelle should be directed, first, to refund the amount of EUR 67.86, 4together with interest, and, secondly, to desist in future from invoicing consumers for the use of defective goods on delivery of replacement goods.
Bundesverband je na podlagi ustreznega kupčevega pooblastila proti Quelle vložil tožbo z dvema tožbenima zahtevkoma: dajatvenim zahtevkom za vrnitev zneska 67,86 evra 4z obrestmi ter opustitvenim zahtevkom, naj Quelle v prihodnosti opusti zahtevke za plačilo nadomestil za uporabo v primerih zamenjave blaga z napako.
Paragraph 100 of the BGB provides that ‘benefits’ are ‘the fruits of a thing or of a right, including the benefits arising from use of the thing or exercise of the right’.
Člen 100 BGB opredeljuje, da so koristi „plodovi stvari ali pravice ter prednosti, ki izhajajo iz uporabe stvari ali pravice“.
III — Facts, main proceedings and the question referred
III – Dejansko stanje, postopek v glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
The Landgericht (Regional Court) Nüremberg-Fürth granted the claim for reimbursement of the amount paid and dismissed the remainder of the action.
Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth (deželno sodi�če Nürnberg-Fürth) je ugodilo dajatvenemu zahtevku za vrnitev plačanega zneska in tožbo v preostalem zavrnilo. Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (vi�je deželno sodi�če Nürnberg) je potrdilo sodbo prvostopenjskega sodi�ča in dopustilo revizijo.
In the grounds for its judgment, the Oberlandesgericht explained that Paragraph 439(4) of the BGB could not be cited as the legal basis for the claim for compensation for use and that the reasons stated by the legislature in relation to the right to compensation were not convincing.
V obrazložitvi je pojasnilo, da člen 439(4) BGB ne more biti pravna podlaga za zahtevek za nadomestilo za uporabo in da utemeljitev zakonodajalca v zvezi s to pravico do nadomestila ni prepričljiva.
5The Oberlandesgericht pointed out that there was no justification for applying the provisions concerning termination of contract to cases in which goods are replaced, given that although the purchaser receives new
5 Opozorilo je, da ni utemeljeno, da se za zamenjavo blaga uporabljajo določbe o odstopu od pogodbe, saj ob zamenjavi kupec res prejme novo stvar,
4 — Neither the order of the national court nor either of the judgments of the two courts below indicates why the Bundesverband sought a lower amount than that which the purchaser paid.
4 – Niti iz sklepa predložitvenega sodi�ča niti iz sodb obeh nižjih sodi�č ne izhaja, zakaj je Bundesverband tožil za nižji znesek, kot je bil tisti, ki ga je plačal kupec.
According to the published version of the judgment of the Nuremberg-Fürth Landgericht, the purchaser paid EUR 67.86, but according to the judgment of the Nuremberg Oberlandesgericht and the order of the national court the purchaser paid the (higher) amount of EUR 69.97.
V objavi sodbe deželnega sodi�ča Nürnberg-Fürth je sicer navedeno, da je kupec plačal znesek 67,86 evra, vendar tako sodba vi�jega deželnega sodi�ča Nürnberg kakor tudi sklep predložitvenega sodi�ča navajata, da je kupec plačal (vi�ji) znesek 69,97 evra.
Indeed, in its judgment the Nuremberg Oberlandesgericht even held that ‘[t]he difference from the actual EUR 69.97 is not explained’.
Sodba vi�jega deželnega sodi�ča Nürnberg celo navaja, da „razlika do dejanskega 69,97 evra ni pojasnjena“. Glej Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg, sodba z dne 23. avgusta 2005, 3 U 991/05, Neue Juristi­sche Wochenschrift, �t. 41/2005, str. 3000.
In August 2002, in the context of a mailorder sale, Quelle supplied a stove-set to the purchaser for her private use at a price of EUR 524.90.
Podjetje Quelle je avgusta 2002 kupcu v okviru katalo�ke prodaje dostavilo �tedilnik za osebno uporabo po ceni 524,90 evra.
In January 2004, the purchaser noticed that the enamel layer had come away from the interior of the oven which was part of the ‘stove-set’.
Januarja 2004 je kupec ugotovil, da je na notranji strani pečice dobavljenega �tedilnika odstopil emajl.
Since it was not possible to repair the appliance, the purchaser requested — in the same month, hence within the guarantee period — a replacement.
Ker popravilo ni bilo mogoče, je �e v istem mesecu – torej �e v času veljavnosti garancije – zahteval zamenjavo blaga.
She returned the defective appliance to the seller (Quelle), who supplied her with a new stove-set and claimed payment by way of compensation for use, initially in the amount of EUR 119.97, but ultimately of EUR 69.97. The purchaser paid the latter sum.
Štedilnik z napako je prodajalcu, podjetju Quelle, vrnil, ta pa mu je dostavil novega in pri tem zahteval plačilo nadomestila za uporabo, najprej v vi�ini 119,97 evra, končno pa v vi�ini 69,97 evra, kar je kupec plačal.
Directive 1999/44, under which replacement is to be made ‘free of charge’ and ‘without any significant inconvenience to the consumer’.
10 V zvezi s tem prodajalec pa obdrži celotno plačilo, skupaj z morebitnimi koristmi, ki jih je od tega plačila pridobil.
Moreover, it does not share the view that the Directive governs only the ‘free of charge’ requirement attaching to delivery.
6 Nasprotno pa si morata kupec in prodajalec v primeru odstopa od pogodbe dajatve vzajemno vrniti.
10 In that connection, the Bundesgerichtshof also points out that opinion in German legal literature is divided on the question whether the German legislation is compatible with Directive 1999/44. 11
7 omenja tudi, da so mnenja v nem�ki literaturi glede vpra�anja skladnosti nem�ke ureditve z Direktivo 1999/44 deljena. 11
In those circumstances, by order of 16 August 2006, the Bundesgerichtshof stayed proceedings and referred the following question to the Court of Justice for a prelim -inary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je predložitveno sodi�če s sklepom z dne 16. avgusta 2006 odločilo, da prekine odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predloži naslednje vpra�anje:
The Bundesgerichtshof has doubts concerning the unilateral burden placed on the purchaser by the obligation to pay compensation for use, but does not see any way of correcting that imbalance by means of interpretation, since that is precluded both by the plain wording of the relevant provisions and the unambiguous intention of the legislature as disclosed by the explanatory memorandum accompanying the draft Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz (Law on the modernisation of the law of obligations).
Bundesgerichtshof ima pomisleke proti enostranski obremenitvi kupca s plačilom nadomestila za uporabo, vendar ne vidi možnosti, da bi se tej nesorazmernosti izognilo z razlago navedenih določb, saj temu nasprotujeta tako jasno besedilo teh določb kakor tudi nedvoumna volja zakonodajalca, razvidna iz obrazložitve osnutka zakona o reformi obligacijskega prava.
8The Bundesgerichtshof points out that the possibility of interpretation is ruled out wherever it would contradict the wording of the statute and the clearly expressed intention of the legislature. 9
8Opozarja, da se možnost razlage konča tam, kjer trči ob besedilo zakona in jasno voljo zakonodajalca. 9
In addition, the Bundesgerichtshof is uncertain whether the German legislation at issue is compatible with Article 3(2) to (4) of
Poleg tega Bundesgerichtshof dvomi, da je sporna nem�ka ureditev v skladu s členom 3(2) do (4) Direktive 1999/44, ki
‘Are the provisions of Article 3(2) of Direct- ive 1999/44, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) and Article 3(4) thereof, or of the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where consumer goods are brought into conformity with the contract by means of delivery of replacement goods, the seller may require compensation from the consumer for use of the goods ori -ginally delivered, which were not in conform- ity with the contract?’
„Ali je treba člen 3(2) v povezavi s čle nom 3(3), prvi pododstavek, in členom 3(4) ali člen 3(3), tretji pododstavek, Direktive 1999/44/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. maja 1999 o nekaterih vidikih prodaje potro�ni�kega blaga in z njim povezanih garancij razlagati tako, da nasprotuje določbi nacionalne zakonodaje, v skladu s katero lahko prodajalec v primeru, ko z zamenjavo vzpostavi skladnost dobavljenega blaga s pogodbo, od potro�nika zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo prvotno dobavljenega, s pogodbo neskladnega blaga?“
6 — Ibid., p.
6 – Prav tam, str.
3001.7 — Ibid., p. 3001.
3001.7 – Prav tam.
See also the order dated 16 August 2006 of the Bundesgerichtshof making the reference, p. 8.
Glej tudi predložitveni sklep Bundesgerichtshof z dne 16. avgusta 2006, str. 8.
10 — Ibid., p.
10 – Prav tam, str.
10.11 — Ibid., p. 10.
10.11 – Prav tam.
IV — Proceedings before the Court
IV – Postopek pred Sodiščem na zakon.
At the hearing on 4 October 2007, Quelle, the Bundesverband, the German Government and the Commission presented oral argument and answered questions from the Court.
Predložitveni sklep je na Sodi�če prispel 28. septembra 2006.
In order to comply with the decision of the Court of Justice, the Bundesgerichtshof would have to construe national law contra legem, a course of action which is not permissible in the light of the caselaw of the Court in Pupino 12and Adeneler and Others 13to the effect that a directive cannot provide the basis for an interpretation contra legem.
legem, kar ni dopustno, saj iz sodb Sodi�ča ES v zadevah Pupino 12in Adeneler 13izhaja, da direktiva ne more biti podlaga za razlago contra legem.
As regards the answer to be given to the question referred, Quelle maintains that Direct- ive 1999/44 does not govern the question of compensation for use, which means that the German legislature is not subject to any restriction when making provision in that regard.
Glede odgovora na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje je Quelle mnenja, da Direktiva 1999/44 vpra�anja nadomestila za uporabo ne ureja, zato nem�ki zakonodajalec pri ureditvi tega vpra�anja ni omejen.
The German legislation is legitimate, because it enables a fine balance to be struck between the claim for repair and the claim for replacement.
Nem�ka ureditev je dopustna, ker omogoča ravnotežje med zahtevkom za popravilo in zamenjavo.
V — Arguments of the parties
V – Trditve strank