natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the question arises of the kinds of measures required for that latter purpose.
Vsekakor se poraja vpra�anje o vrstah potrebnih ukrepov za ta zadnji namen.
The German legal system provides for the enforcement of PDOs through judicial action which is open to a wide range of plaintiffs who can include inter alia consumer protection associations and business organisations.
Za uveljavitev ZOP nem�ki pravni sistem določa sodni postopek, ki je dostopen �tevilnim tožnikom, med katerimi so lahko združenja za varstvo potro�nikov in poslovne organizacije.
Enforcement through judicial action is therefore potentially open to plaintiffs pursuing much wider interests than merely the protection of the interests of the producers of goods covered by a PDO.
Uveljavljanje s sodnim postopkom je zato dostopno tožnikom, ki zasledujejo veliko �ir�i interes, kot je le za�čita interesov proizvajalcev blaga, ki ga zajema ZOP.
However, in my view it cannot be inferred from the Regulation that these inspection structures must systematically act ex officio in the absence of any impetus, for instance as a result of complaints of producers whose products lawfully bear a PDO or consumers or any other producers.
Vendar menim, da iz te uredbe ne moremo izpeljati, da morajo te strukture kontrole sistematično delovati po uradni dolžnosti, če ni nobene pobude, kot na primer na podlagi pritožbe proizvajalcev, katerih proizvodi zakonito nosijo ZOP, ali potro�niki ali kateri koli drugi proizvajalci.
This is confirmed by the Commission in its literature on the matter.
Komisija je to potrdila v svojih dokumentih o tej zadevi.
In the Commission’s ‘Guide to Community Regulations’ on ‘Protection of Geographical Indications, Designations of Origin and Certificates of
V Komisijinem „Vodniku po predpisih Skupnosti“ o „za�čiti geografskih oznak, označb porekla in certifikatih posebnega značaja za kmetijske proizvode in živila“
27 — Indeed this approach has now been unequivocally adopted in Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).
27 – Ta pristop je bil zdaj nedvoumno sprejet v členu 10 Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 510/2006 z dne 20. marca 2006 o za�čiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila (UL L 93, str. 12).
This regulation entered into force on 31 March 2006 and repealed the Basic Regulation.
Uredba je začela veljati 31. marca 2006 in je razveljavila Temeljno uredbo.
Under Article 10 it provides for ‘official controls’ by stating that ‘Member States shall designate the competent authority or authorities responsible for controls in respect of the obligations established by this Regulation in conformity with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules]’.
V členu 10 določa „uradni nadzor“, ko pravi, da „države članice imenujejo pristojni organ ali organe, ki so odgovorni za nadzor v skladu z Uredbo (ES) �t. 882/2004 [Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004 o izvajanju uradnega nadzora, da se zagotovi preverjanje skladnosti z zakonodajo o krmi in živilih ter s pravili o zdravstvenem varstvu živali in za�čiti živali] v zvezi z obveznostmi po tej uredbi“.
Article 11 deals separately with the ‘verification of compliance with specifications’ and provides inter alia that the costs of such verification shall be borne by operators subject to it.
Člen 11 ločeno obravnava „preverjanje skladnosti s specifikacijami“ in med drugim določa, da stro�ke takega preverjanja krijejo gospodarski subjekti, ki so podvrženi takemu preverjanju.
Nevertheless I consider that for the purposes of effective implementation of the Basic Regulation the existence of such judicial means does not exempt Member States from the obligation to provide at the same time for appropriate inspection mechanisms, independently of judicial action.
Ne glede na to menim, da za namene učinkovitega izvajanja Temeljne uredbe obstoj takih sodnih sredstev ne pomeni, da država članica nima obveznosti, da hkrati zagotovi ustrezne nadzorne mehanizme, ne glede na sodni postopek.
Article 10(1) establishes an obligation for Member States to ‘ensure that … inspection structures are in place, the function of which shall be to ensure that agricultural products and foodstuffs bearing a protected name meet requirements laid down in the specifications’.
Člen 10(1) vzpostavlja obveznost držav članic, da „zagotovijo, da bodo […] vzpostavljene strukture kontrole, katerih naloga je zagotavljati, da kmetijski proizvodi in živila, ki nosijo za�čiteno ime, izpolnjujejo zahteve, določene v specifikacijah“.
Given such a general formulation the obligation to ensure the effective implementation of the Basic Regulation places Member States under a general obligation to provide for adequate inspection structures to verify whether a product which is marketed in a given Member State and which bears a given PDO complies with the specification for that PDO, regardless of the place where the PDO originates.
Upo�tevajoč tako splo�no formulacijo, nalaga obveznost zagotoviti učinkovito izvajanje Temeljne uredbe državam članicam splo�no obveznost, da določijo ustrezne strukture kontrole, da se preveri, ali proizvod, ki se trži v obravnavani državi članici in nosi obravnavani ZOP, ustreza specifikaciji za ta ZOP, ne glede na kraj, od koder izvira ZOP.
Such inspections may for instance be carried out in the framework of official
Take kontrole se lahko izvedejo v okviru uradnega nadzora, ki se ga izvaja
COMMISSION v GERMANY
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI je navedeno, da „uveljavljanje izključnih pravic organizirajo in izvedejo države članice.
Specific character for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs’, it is stated that ‘[t]he enforcement of exclusive rights is organised and carried out by the Member States.
Zato je od držav članic odvisno, ali službe, zadolžene za uveljavitev, delujejo na lastno pobudo (po uradni dolžnosti) ali na podlagi pritožbe nosilca pravice ZOP/PGI/TSG“.
Therefore, it is up to the Member States whether the Services designated for such enforcement act on their own initiative (ex officio) or based on complaints of right holders of the PDO/PGI/TSG.’ 28 involving controls and possible penalties, is required, even when it is not provided for under Community law and without any external impetus, in situations where there is no incentive for individuals or economic operators to complain 29 or where any delay could result in irreversible damage, such as when the precautionary principle requires immediate action to withdraw dangerous foodstuffs or to end behaviour which may cause irreversible damage to the environment.
28 podlage v pravu Skupnosti, in brez kakr�ne koli zunanje pobude v okoli�činah, ko ni spodbude posameznikov ali gospodarskih subjektov 29ali kjer bi vsakr�na zamuda lahko povzročila nepopravljivo �kodo, tako kot načelo previdnosti zahteva takoj�nje ukrepanje pri umiku živil ali da prenehajo z ravnanji, ki lahko povzročijo nepopravljivo �kodo okolju.
The present case is not, however, comparable to any of these situations.
Vendar ta zadeva ni primerljiva z nobeno od teh okoli�čin.
It follows that Member States have, in the implementation of the Basic Regulation, a discretion as to whether to carry out inspections in a given case and then to take measures if they find goods which infringe the PDO.
Iz tega sledi, da imajo države članice pri izvr�evanju Temeljne uredbe diskrecijo, ali izvedejo nadzor in tako sprejmejo ukrepe, če najdejo blago, ki kr�i ZOP.
The present case must be distinguished from situations where, because of the interest at stake, the discretion of a Member State to act ex officio is much more limited.
To zadevo moramo razlikovati od okoli�čin, ko je zaradi zadevnih interesov diskrecija države članice, da ukrepa po uradni dolžnosti, veliko bolj omejena.
For instance, ex officio action by State authorities,
Na primer, ukrep, ki ga po uradni dolžnosti sprejmejo državni organi in vključuje nadzor ter morebitne sankcije, je potreben tudi, če zanj ni
Even in a situation where Member States have in principle a relatively wide discretion as to the measures which they must adopt and effectively apply in order to safeguard the effectiveness of Community law, Member States may be required, under certain circumstances, to take action.
Tudi ko imajo države članice načeloma razmeroma �iroko diskrecijsko pravico glede ukrepov, ki jih morajo sprejeti in učinkovito uveljaviti, da bi zavarovale učinkovitost prava Skupnosti, se lahko v določenih okoli�činah od njih zahteva, da sprejmejo ukrepe.
In Commission v France, the Court held that, in that case, the French public authorities had exceeded their margin of discretion by not taking action in spite of criminal acts repeated over several years, tolerated by the police, and complaints lodged before the judicial authorities. 30
V sodbi Komisija proti Franciji je Sodi�če odločilo, da so v tem primeru francoski državni organi prekoračili stopnjo diskrecije, ker niso ukrepali, čeprav so se več let ponavljala kazniva dejanja, ki jih je policija dopu�čala, in so bile vložene pritožbe pred pravosodnimi organi 30.
28 — Protection of Geographical Indications, Designations of Origin and Certificates of Specific character for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Guide to Community Regulations, 2nd Edition, August 2004, DG for Agriculture, Food quality policy in the European Union; the text is available in PDF format on the Commission’s Internet site (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gi/broch_en.pdf).
28 – Za�čita geografskih oznak, označb porekla in certifikati posebnega značaja za kmetijske proizvode in živila, Vodnik po predpisih Skupnosti, 2. izdaja, avgust 2004, DG for Agriculture, Food quality policy in the European Union, besedilo je na voljo v angle�čini v formatu pdf na spletni strani Komisije (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gi/broch_en.pdf).
However, the facts of the present case, as they appear from the file, are different.
Vendar je dejansko stanje v tej zadevi, kot izhaja iz spisa, drugačno.
In particular, the Commission has failed to produce evidence, which is of temporal relevance to the proceedings at hand, 31 of even one complaint or request for legal protection, much less a pattern of failure to act on such complaints or requests, in relation to abuses of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ occurring on German territory.
Komisija zlasti ni predložila dokazov, ki bi bili začasnega pomena za obravnavani postopek 31, niti ene pritožbe ali zahteve za pravno varstvo, kaj �ele dokaza za sistematično opustitev ukrepanja o teh pritožbah in zahtevah v zvezi z zlorabo ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ na nem�kem ozemlju.
It follows from the above that I do not consider that Article 13(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation, in the light of Article 10 of that regulation, required Germany to prosecute ex officio the marketing of cheese which does not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ under the designation ‘Parmesan’ on its territory.
Glede na vse navedeno menim, da člen 13(1)(b) Temeljne uredbe v smislu člena 10 te uredbe od Nemčije ne zahteva, da po uradni dolžnosti preganja trženje sira, ki ne ustreza specifikaciji ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ pod označbo „Parmesan“ na svojem ozemlju.
In particular, the Commission failed to demonstrate that Germany was under an obligation to take such action in the absence of sufficient and appropriate external impetus to do so.
Komisija zlasti ni dokazala, da bi Nemčija morala tako ukrepati, kadar ni zadostnih in ustreznih zunanjih spodbud za to.
The Commission has therefore failed to submit sufficiently documented and detailed proof that the German authorities were
V zvezi s tem je treba omeniti, da se Komisija opira skoraj izključno na odgovor Nemčije v predsodnem postopku glede dejstva, da je „Parmesan“ generično ime, ko sklepa, da Nemčija ni sprejela ustreznih ukrepov za preprečitev nezakonite uporabe te označbe.
31 — The question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.
31 – Vpra�anje, ali je država članica izpolnila svoje obveznosti, je treba presoditi glede na položaj v državi članici ob izteku roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju.
VII — Costs
VII – Stroški
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of
Na podlagi člena 69(2) Poslovnika se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili prigla�eni.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Court should:
Zato menim, da bi Sodi�če moralo:
(1) dismiss the action;
1. zavrniti tožbo;
(2) order each party to bear its costs.
2. naložiti vsaki stranki, da nosi svoje stro�ke.
JUDGMENT OF 26. 2.
SODBA Z DNE 26. 2.
2008 — CASE C-132/05
2008 – ZADEVA C-132/05
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)26 February 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 26. februarja 2008 *
ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 21 March 2005,
V zadevi C-132/05, zaradi tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES, vložene 21. marca 2005,
Czech Republic, represented by T. Boček, acting as Agent,
Češke republike, ki jo zastopa T. Boček, zastopnik,
Kingdom of Denmark, represented by J. Molde, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Kraljevine Danske, ki jo zastopa J. Molde, zastopnik, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu,
Republic of Austria, represented by E. Riedl, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, interveners,
Republike Avstrije, ki jo zastopa E. Riedl, zastopnik, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, intervenientki,
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 February 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 28 June 2007, gives the following
Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 13. februarja 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 28. junija 2007 izreka naslednjo
By its application, the Commission requests the Court to declare that, by formally refusing to proceed against the use, on its territory, of the name ‘Parmesan’ on the labelling of products which do not comply with the requirements of the specification for the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, thereby favouring the appropriation of the reputation of the genuine, Communitywide
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti s tožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj ugotovi, da Zvezna republika Nemčija s tem, da na svojem ozemlju uradno zavrača sankcioniranje uporabe imena „parmezan“ na etiketah proizvodov, ki ne ustrezajo specifikaciji za�čitene označbe porekla (v nadaljevanju: ZOP) „Parmigiano Reggiano“, in tako spodbuja
COMMISSION v GERMANY protected product, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI poseganje v ugled pristnega proizvoda, za�čitenega na ravni Skupnosti, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 13(1)(b) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 2081/92 z dne 14. julija 1992 o za�čiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila (UL L 208, str. 1).
Regulation No 2081/92 establishes Community protection of designations of origin and of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
Uredba �t. 2081/92 ureja za�čito Skupnosti za označbe porekla in geografske označbe kmetijskih proizvodov in živil.
Article 2 of Regulation No 2081/92 provides:
V členu 2 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 je določeno:
Community protection of designations of origin and of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs shall be obtained in accordance with this Regulation.
Za�čita Skupnosti za označbe porekla in geografske označbe kmetijskih proizvodov in živil se pridobi v skladu s to uredbo.
— originating in that region, specific place or country, and
– s poreklom iz navedene regije, posebnega kraja ali države in
— the quality or characteristics of which are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors, and the production, processing and preparation of which take place in the defined geographical area;
– katerega kakovost ali značilnosti so bistveno ali izključno posledica posebnega geografskega okolja z njegovimi lastnimi naravnimi in člove�kimi faktorji ter katerega proizvodnja, predelave in priprava za trg, potekajo znotraj definiranega geografskega območja;
Article 3(1) of the regulation is worded as follows:
V členu 3(1) te uredbe je določeno:
‘Names that have become generic may not be registered.
„Imena, ki so postala generična, se ne smejo registrirati.
To establish whether or not a name has become generic, account shall be taken of all factors, in particular:
Da bi ugotovili, ali je ime postalo generično ali ne, se upo�tevajo vsi faktorji, zlasti:
According to Article 4(2)(g) of Regulation No 2081/92, the product specification shall include at least ‘details of the inspection structures provided for in Article 10’.
V skladu s členom 4(2)(g) Uredbe �t. 2081/92 vsebuje specifikacija proizvoda najmanj „podrobnosti o strukturi kontrole iz člena 10“.
Article 5(3) and (4) of the regulation states:
V členu 5(3) in (4) te uredbe je določeno:
The application for registration shall include the product specification referred to in Article 4.
Vloga za registracijo vključuje specifikacijo proizvoda iz člena 4.
The application shall be sent to the Member State in which the geographical area is located.’
Vloga se po�lje državi članici, v kateri se nahaja geografsko območje.“
Article 10 of the regulation provides:
V členu 10 navedene uredbe je določeno:
An inspection structure may comprise one or more designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies approved for that purpose by the Member State.
Struktura kontrole lahko zajema enega ali več pristojnih kontrolnih organov in/ali zasebnih subjektov, ki jih za ta namen odobri država članica.
Member States shall send the Commission lists of the authorities and/or bodies approved and their respective powers.
Države članice po�ljejo Komisiji sezname odobrenih organov in/ali subjektov in njihovih pristojnosti.
The Commission shall publish those particulars in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Komisija objavi navedene podatke v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti.
Designated inspection authorities and/or approved private bodies must offer adequate guarantees of objectivity and impartiality with regard to all producers or processors subject to their control and have permanently at their disposal the qualified staff and resources necessary to carry out inspection of agricultural products and foodstuffs bearing a protected name.
Pristojni kontrolni organi in/ali odobreni zasebni subjekti morajo nuditi primerno jamstvo za objektivnost in nepristranskost glede vseh proizvajalcev ali predelovalcev, ki jih ta kontrola zadeva[,] in [imeti] stalno na voljo usposobljeno osebje in potrebna sredstva za izvajanje kontrole kmetijskih proizvodov in živil, ki nosijo za�čiteno ime.
If an inspection structure uses the services of another body for some inspections, that body must offer the same guarantees.
Če izbrana struktura kontrole uporablja storitve drugega organa za nekatere dele kontrole, mora navedeni organ nuditi enako jamstvo.
In that event the designated inspection authorities and/or approved private bodies shall, however, continue to be responsible vis-à-vis the Member State for all inspections.
V tem primeru so pristojni kontrolni organi in/ali odobreni zasebni subjekti vseeno �e vedno odgovorni v razmerju do države članice za vse izvedene kontrole.
As from 1 January 1998, in order to be approved by the Member States for the purpose of this Regulation, private bodies must fulfil the requirements laid down in standard EN 45011 of 26 June 1989.
Od 1. januarja 1998 dalje morajo zasebni subjekti, da bi jih država članica odobrila za namene te uredbe, izpolnjevati zahteve, določene s standardom EN 45011 z dne 26. junija 1989.
If a designated inspection authority and/or private body in a Member State establishes that an agricultural product or a foodstuff bearing a protected name of origin in that Member State does not meet the criteria of the specification, they shall take the steps necessary to ensure that this Regulation is complied with. …
Če pristojni kontrolni organ in/ali zasebni subjekt ugotovita, da kmetijski proizvod ali živilo, ki nosi za�čiteno ime s poreklom, v tisti državi članici ne izpolnjuje kriterijev in zahtev specifikacije, bosta izvedla potrebne ukrepe, da se zagotovi skladnost s to uredbo. […]
A Member State must withdraw approval from an inspection body where the criteria referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 are no longer fulfilled.
Država članica mora odvzeti odobritev kontrolnemu organu, kadar kriteriji iz odstavkov 2 in 3 niso več upo�tevani.
It shall inform the Commission, which shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Communities a revised list of approved bodies.
Obvesti Komisijo, ki v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti objavi revidiran seznam odobrenih organov.
The Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to ensure that a producer who complies with this Regulation has access to the inspection system.
Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, da zagotovijo, da ima proizvajalec, ki se ravna po tej uredbi, dostop do kontrolnega sistema.
The costs of inspections provided for under this Regulation shall be borne by the producers using the protected name.’
Stro�ke kontrol, predvidenih s to uredbo, nosijo proizvajalci, ki uporabljajo za�čiteno ime.“
Under Article 13 of the regulation:
V členu 13 iste uredbe je določeno:
(b) any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the protected name is translated or accompanied by an expression such as “style”, “type”, “method”, “as produced in”, “imitation” or similar;
(b) vsaki zlorabi, posnemanju ali navajanju, četudi je pravo poreklo proizvoda označeno ali če je za�čiteno ime prevedeno ali mu je dodan izraz[,] kot je ‚slog‘, ‚tip‘, ‚metoda‘, ‚kakor se proizvaja v‘, ‚imitacija‘ in podobno;
Protected names may not become generic.’
Za�čiteno ime ne sme postati generično.“
1) and to Part A of the annex thereto, ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ is to be a PDO with effect from 21 June 1996.
1) in naslovom A priloge k navedeni uredbi je ime „Parmigiano Reggiano“ od 21. junija 1996 ZOP.
Following a complaint filed by several economic operators, the Commission requested the German authorities, by letter of 15 April 2003, to give clear instructions to the government bodies responsible for the combating of fraud to bring to an end the marketing on German territory of products designated as ‘Parmesan’ which did not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Komisija je po več vloženih pritožbah gospodarskih subjektov z dopisom z dne 15. aprila 2003 od nem�kih organov zahtevala, naj dajo jasna navodila organom, pristojnim za pregon goljufij, da se na nem�kem ozemlju preneha trženje proizvodov, označenih kot „parmezan“, ki ne ustrezajo specifikaciji ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
Since the term ‘Parmesan’, according to the Commission, was a translation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, its use constituted a breach of Article 13(1)(b) of the regulation.
Pojem „parmezan“ je po mnenju Komisije prevod ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ in naj bi zato njegova uporaba pomenila kr�itev člena 13(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 2081/92.