natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2008 — CASE C-380/05 court on the interpretation of a Community rule bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (Bosman, paragraph 61; Acereda Herrera, paragraph 48; and Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Cipolla and Others [2006] ECR I-11421, paragraph 25).
2008 – ZADEVA C-380/05 zahtevalo nacionalno sodi�če, ni v nobeni zvezi z resničnostjo ali s predmetom spora o glavni stvari, če je problem hipotetičen ali če Sodi�če nima na voljo dejanskih in pravnih elementov, potrebnih za to, da bi podalo koristen odgovor na postavljena vpra�anja (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Bosman, točka 61, in Acereda Herrera, točka 48, ter sodba z dne 5. decembra 2006 v združenih zadevah Cipolla in drugi, C-94/04 in C-202/04, ZOdl., str. I-11421, točka 25).
In that regard, the decision making the reference must set out the precise reasons why the national court was unsure as to the interpretation of Community law and why it considered it necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Glede tega je treba v predložitveni odločbi navesti jasne razloge, ki so nacionalnemu sodi�ču vzbudili dvom o razlagi prava Skupnosti in zaradi katerih meni, da je treba na Sodi�če nasloviti vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
It must be stated, however, that as regards its tenth question, the national court does not give any indication as to the Community provisions which it requires to be interpreted or any explanation of the link it establishes between those provisions and the dispute in the main proceedings or the subject-matter of that dispute.
Treba je ugotoviti, da glede desetega vpra�anja predložitveno sodi�če ne predloži nobenega podatka glede določb prava Skupnosti, katerih razlago zahteva, niti povezave, ki jo je ugotovilo med temi določbami in nacionalno zakonodajo, ki se uporablja v sporu o glavni stvari.
The tenth question is for that reason inadmissible.
Zato deseto vpra�anje ni dopustno.
Thirdly, the need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary that the referring court should define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least,
Tretjič je treba opozoriti, da nujnost razlage prava Skupnosti, ki je koristna za nacionalno sodi�če, zahteva, naj to sodi�če opredeli pravni in dejanski stan teh vpra�anj, ki jih zastavlja, ali vsaj razloži dejstva, ki so bila podlaga za ta vpra�anja (glej sodbe
Those requirements are of particular importance in the area of competition, which is characterised by complex factual and legal situations (see Telemarsicabruzzo and Others, paragraph 7; Bettati, paragraph 68; and Albany International, paragraph 39).
Te zahteve prevladajo zlasti na področju konkurence, za katero so značilni zapleteni dejanski in pravni položaji (zgoraj navedene sodbe Telemarsicabruzzo in drugi, točka 7, Bettati, točka 68, in Albany International, točka 39).
In this case, as the Advocate General notes in point 27 of his Opinion, it seems that, by asking for an interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on competition in its second question, the referring court has in mind, essentially, Article 86(1) EC, read in conjunction with Article 82 EC.
V tej zadevi, kot navaja generalni pravobranilec v točki 27 sklepnih predlogov, pa se zdi, da je predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem, s katerim je želelo razlago pravil Pogodbe o konkurenci, v glavnem mislilo na člen 86(1) ES v povezavi s členom 82 ES.
However, the decision making the reference does not contain any indication regarding, inter alia, the definition of the relevant market, the calculation of the market shares held by the various undertakings operating on that market, and the supposed abuse of a dominant position.
Vendar predlog za predhodno odločanje ne vsebuje nobenega podatka, zlasti glede opredelitve tržnih deležev, ki jih imajo različna podjetja, ki delujejo na tem trgu, in domnevne zlorabe prevladujočega položaja.
Consequently, it must be held that, in so far as it relates to the Treaty provisions on competition, the second question is inadmissible (see, to that effect, Case C-134/03 Viacom Outdoor [2005] ECR I-1167, paragraphs 25 to 29).
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da je v delu, kjer omenja določbe Pogodbe o konkurenci, drugo vpra�anje treba �teti za nedopustno (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 17. februarja 2005 v zadevi Viacom Outdoor, C-134/03, ZOdl., str. I-1167, točke od 25 do 29).
The ninth question must be regarded as being inadmissible on the same grounds.
Zaradi enakih razlogov je treba �teti za nedopustno tudi deveto vpra�anje.
Fourthly, it is necessary to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction in the present case to give a ruling on Article 49 EC, since it is common ground that all aspects of the main proceedings are confined within only one Member State.
Četrtič je treba preveriti, ali je Sodi�če v tej zadevi pristojno, da se izreče o členu 49 ES, čeprav ni sporno, da so vsi elementi spora, o katerem odloča predložitevno sodi�če, omejeni na samo eno državo članico.
The finding of a link with intra-Community trade will be presumed if the market in question has a certain crossborder interest (Case C-507/03 Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-9777, paragraph 29), which it is for the national court to determine.
Vezi s trgovino znotraj Skupnosti lahko predvidimo, če zadevni trg predstavlja določen čezmejni interes (sodba z dne 13. novembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Irski, C-507/03, ZOdl., str. I-9777, točka 29), kar mora preveriti predložitveno sodi�če.
In any event, it is necessary to answer the second question referred to the Court in this case since it relates to Article 49 EC.
V vsakem primeru je treba odgovoriti na drugo vpra�anje, ki je bilo predloženo Sodi�ču v tej zadevi, v delu, v katerem se nana�a na člen 49 ES.
Consequently, the Court has jurisdiction to give a ruling on the interpretation of Article 49 EC.
Sodi�če je torej pristojno za razlago člena 49 ES.
The second question is therefore admissible in so far as it relates to Article 49 EC.
Drugo vpra�anje je torej dopustno v delu, ki se nana�a na člen 49 ES.
The second, fourth and fifth questions
Drugo, četrto in peto vprašanje
The second, fourth and fifth questions all relate, essentially, to whether the provisions of Article 49 EC or the NCRF preclude, in television broadcasting matters, national
Drugo, četrto in peto vpra�anje se nana�ajo v glavnem na to, ali določbe člena 49 ES ali NSRO na področju televizijske radiodifuzije nasprotujejo nacionalni zakono-
2008 — CASE C-380/05 legislation the application of which means that it is impossible for an operator holding rights to broadcast without the allocation of broadcasting radio frequencies.
2008 – ZADEVA C-380/05 daji, na podlagi katere operater, ki ima koncesijo, ne more oddajati, ker mu niso bile dodeljene frekvence za oddajanje.
It is true that, in respect of the second question, the Court can answer from the point of view of Article 49 EC only in so far as that question relates to Italian legislation, namely Article 3(7) of Law No 249/1997, which pre-dates the application of the NCRF, as is clear from Article 28(1) of the Framework Directive, Article 18(1) of the Authorisation Directive and Article 9 of the Competition Directive.
Seveda lahko Sodi�če v okviru drugega vpra�anja odgovori z vidika člena 49 ES le, če se to vpra�anje nana�a na italijansko zakonodajo, in sicer na člen 3(7) zakona �t. 249/1997, ki se je uporabljal pred NSRO, kot izhaja iz člena 28(1) okvirne direktive, člena 18(1) direktive o odobritvi in člena 9 direktive o konkurenci.
Likewise, the fourth and fifth questions refer only to the NCRF, since they concern national legislation subsequent to the date of application of the NCRF, namely the provisions of Law No 112/2004.
Prav tako se četrto in peto vpra�anje navezujeta le na NSRO, saj se nana�ata na nacionalno zakonodajo po datumu začetka uporabe NSRO, torej na določbe zakona �t. 112/2004.
First, however, the second question also relates to Italian legislation subsequent to the applicability of the NCRF, namely Article 1 of Decree-Law No 352/2003.
Vendar se po eni strani drugo vpra�anje nana�a tudi na italijansko zakonodajo po uporabi NSRO, in sicer na člen 1 uredbezakona �t. 352/2003.
Secondly, as pointed out by the Commission in its observations to the Court, the NCRF implemented provisions of the Treaty, in particular those on freedom to provide services, in the area of electronic communications networks and services, as defined in Articles 2(a) and (c) of the Framework Directive, Article 2(1) of the Authorisation Directive and points 1 and 3 of Article 1 of the Competition Directive.
Po drugi strani, kot je navedla Komisija v stali�čih, ki jih je predložila Sodi�ču, je NSRO izvajal določbe Pogodbe, zlasti tiste o svobodi opravljanja storitev na področju elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij in storitev, kot so opredeljene v členu 2(a) in (c) okvirne direktive, členu 2(1) direktive o odobritvi in členu (1) direktive o konkurenci.
The second, fourth and fifth questions must therefore be dealt with together, since the answers relating to the NCRF are relevant only from its date of application, as set out in Article 28(1) of the Framework Directive, Article 18(1) of the Authorisation Directive and Article 9 of the Competition Directive.
Drugo, četrto in peto vpra�anje je treba torej obravnavati skupaj, saj je bilo pojasnjeno, da se odgovor glede NSRO upo�teva le od začetka njegove uporabe, ki je določena v členu 28(1) okvirne direktive, členu 18(1) direktive o odobritvi in členu 9 direktive o konkurenci.
In order to provide an answer which is of use to the national court, it should be recalled that the Treaty does not require national monopolies having a commercial character to be abolished completely, but requires them to be adjusted in such a way as to ensure that no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed exists between nationals of Member States (Case C-189/95 Franzén [1997] ECR I-5909, paragraph 38 and the caselaw cited).
Da se poda na ta vpra�anja predložitvenemu sodi�ču koristen odgovor, je treba opozoriti, da Pogodba ne zahteva popolne ukinitve državnih monopolov tržne narave, ampak določa tako prilagajanje, da se glede pogojev nabave in trženja zagotovi odprava vsakr�ne diskriminacije med državljani držav članic (sodba z dne 23. oktobra 1997 v zadevi Franzén, C-189/95, Recueil, str. I-5909, točka 38 in navedena sodna praksa).
However, Article 49 EC precludes the application of any national rules which have the effect of making the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services purely within one Member State (Joined Cases C-544/03 and C-545/03 Mobistar and Belgacom Mobile [2005] ECR I-7723, paragraph 30).
Člen 49 nasprotuje uporabi katerega koli nacionalnega predpisa, ki povzroči, da opravljanje storitev med državami članicami postane težavnej�e od opravljanja storitev znotraj države članice (sodba z dne 8. septembra 2005 v združenih zadevah Mobistar in Belgacom Mobile, C-544/03 in C-545/03, ZOdl., str. I-7723, točka 30).
In the area of electronic communications networks and services, those principles were implemented by the NCRF.
Na področju elektronskih in komunikacijskih storitev ter omrežij je ta načela izvajal NSRO.
Article 8 of the Framework Directive places on the Member States the obligation to ensure that the national regulatory authorities take all reasonable measures aimed at promoting competition in the provision of electronic communications services, ensuring that there is no distortion or restriction of competition in the electronic communications sector and removing remaining obstacles to the provision of those services at European level.
S členom 8 okvirne direktive so namreč države članice obvezane zagotoviti, da nacionalni regulativni organi sprejmejo vse primerne ukrepe pri zagotavljanju konkurence v sektorju elektronskih komunikacijskih omreži, tako da skrbijo, da v sektorju elektronskih komunikacij ni izkrivljanja ali omejevanja konkurence in da odpravijo preostale ovire pri zagotavljanju elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij na evropski ravni.
Likewise, Article 2(2) of the Competition Directive requires the Member States to take all measures necessary to ensure that any undertaking is entitled to provide electronic communications services or to establish, extend or provide electronic communications networks.
Prav tako je v člen 2(2) direktive o konkurenci državam članicam naloženo, naj sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe, da se zagotovi upravičenost katerega koli podjetja do opravljanja elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev ali vzpostavljanja, �irjenja ali zagotavljanja elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij.
Article 3(1) of the Authorisation Directive also enjoins the Member States to ensure the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services and prohibits them from preventing an undertaking from providing those networks or services, except where this is necessary for the reasons set out in Article 46(1) EC.
V členu 3(1) direktive o odobritvi je državam članicam naloženo, naj zagotavljajo prosto ponudbo elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij in storitev, ter jim je prepovedano podjetju preprečiti zagotavljanje teh komunikacijskih omrežij ali storitev, razen kadar je to potrebno iz razlogov, ki so določeni v členu 46(1) ES.
For that purpose, Article 3(2) of the Authorisation Directive states that the provision of electronic communications networks or electronic communications services may be subject only to a general authorisation.
Zato člen 3(2) direktive o odobritvi določa, da lahko za zagotavljanje elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij ali elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev velja samo splo�na odobritev.
On that point, it must be stated that, in the area of television broadcasting, freedom to provide services, as enshrined in Article 49 EC and implemented in this area by the NCRF, requires not only the grant of broadcasting authorisations, but also the grant of broadcasting radio frequencies.
Glede tega naj pojasnimo, da svoboda opravljanja storitev na področju radiotelevizijskih oddaj, kot je določena v členu 49 ES in jo na tem področju izvaja NSRO, poleg koncesije za odobritev oddajanja zahteva tudi dodelitev radijskih frekvenc za oddajanje.
An operator cannot exercise effectively the rights which it derives from Community law in terms of access to the television broadcasting market without broadcasting radio frequencies.
Operater namreč ne more dejansko uresničevati pravic, ki jih ima v skladu s pravom Skupnosti glede dostopa na trg televizijske radiodifuzije, ker mu niso bile dodeljene frekvence za oddajanje.
To that end, Article 9(1) of the Framework Directive provides that the ‘Member States shall ensure the effective management of radio frequencies for electronic communication services in their territory’.
Zato člen 9(1) okvirne direktive določa, naj „države članice poskrbijo za učinkovito upravljanje radijskih frekvenc za elektronske komunikacijske storitve na svojem ozemlju“.
Similarly, Article 5(1) of the Authorisation Directive states that, where possible, Member States may not, in particular where the risk of harmful interference is negligible, make the use of radio frequencies subject to the grant of individual rights of use but are to include the conditions for usage of such radio frequencies in the general authorisation.
Prav tako člen 5(1) direktive o odobritvi določa, naj države članice, če je le mogoče, ne pogojujejo uporabe radijskih frekvenc s podelitvijo individualnih pravic uporabe, zlasti kadar je tveganje �kodljivega motenja zanemarljivo, temveč vključijo pogoje za uporabo takih radijskih frekvenc v splo�no odobritev.
Moreover, point 1 of Article 4 of the Competition Directive prohibits the Member States from granting exclusive or special rights of use of radio frequencies for the provision of electronic communications services.
Sicer pa člen 4(1) direktive o konkurenci določa, da države članice ne smejo podeliti izključnih ali posebnih pravic do uporabe radijskih frekvenc za zagotavljanje elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev.
In the present case, the national court questions the Court on the criteria applied for the grant of radio frequencies for the purpose of operating on the analogue television broadcasting market.
V tej zadevi predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje Sodi�če glede meril, ki se izvajajo za dodelitev frekvenc za analogno radiotelevizijsko oddajanje na trgu.
The national court is not questioning the Court on the criteria which have been applied, pursuant to Law No 249/1997, for the grant of rights to operate on the analogue television broadcasting market.
Po eni strani namreč predložitevno sodi�če ne spra�uje Sodi�ča o merilih, ki so se izvajala v skladu z zakonom �t. 249/1997 za dodelitev pravic za analogno radiotelevizijsko oddajanje na trgu.
Nor are those criteria disputed by Centro Europa 7, either before the national court or in the observations it has submitted to the Court, since Centro Europa 7 was granted rights in accordance with those criteria.
Teh meril družba Centro Europa 7 ne izpodbija niti pred predložitvenim sodi�čem niti v stali�čih, ki so bila predložena Sodi�ču, saj je ta družba dobila koncesijo prav na podlagi teh meril.
There is therefore no need for the Court to give a ruling on those criteria.
Torej se Sodi�ču o teh merilih ni treba izreči.
The national court has doubts as to the compatibility of Law No 249/1997 with Community law only in so far as Article 3(7) of that Law set up transitional arrangements in favour of the incumbent networks, which had the effect of preventing operators without radio frequencies, such as Centro Europa 7, from accessing the market in question.
Predložitveno sodi�če dvomi o skladnosti zakona �t. 249/1997 s pravom Skupnosti le glede tega, da je člen 3(7) tega zakona določil prehodno ureditev, ki postavlja v ugodnej�i položaj obstoječe kanale in je povzročil, da je bil dostop do zadevnega trga oviran za operaterje, ki niso imeli radijskih frekvenc, kot je bila družba Centro Europa 7.
In that regard, the successive application of the transitional arrangements structured in favour of the incumbent networks in Article 3(7) of Law No 249/1997 and Article 1 of Decree-Law No 352/2003 had the effect of preventing operators without broadcasting radio frequencies from accessing the market in question.
249/1997 in členom 1 uredbezakona �t. 352/2003 določene v korist obstoječih kanalov, povzročila, da operaterjem, ki niso imeli radijskih frekvenc za oddajanje, ni bil omogočen dostop do zadevnega trga.
The view must also be taken that, by issuing a general authorisation to operate on the broadcasting services market only to the incumbent networks, Article 23(5) of Law No 112/2004 consolidated the restrictive effect confirmed in the preceding paragraph.
Prav tako je treba ugotoviti, da je člen 23(5) zakona �t. 112/2004 s tem, da je določil splo�no odobritev za oddajanje na trgu radijskega oddajanja le za obstoječe kanale, okrepil restriktivni učinek, ki je bil ugotovljen v prej�nji točki.
First, by limiting de facto the number of operators able to broadcast on the market in question, those measures are and/or were likely to hinder the provision of services in the area of television broadcasting.
Dejansko so ti ukrepi po eni strani s tem, da so omejili �tevilo operaterjev, ki lahko oddajajo na zadevnem trgu, lahko ovirali opravljanje storitev na področju radiotelevizijske difuzije.
Secondly, those measures have and/or have had the effect of freezing the structures on the national market and protecting the position of the operators already active on that market.
Po drugi strani pa so ti ukrepi ohromili strukture domačega trga in so zavarovali položaj nacionalnih operaterjev, ki so že delovali na trgu.
Consequently, Article 49 EC and, from the date on which they became applicable, Article 9(1) of the Framework Directive, Article 5(1) of the Authorisation Directive and point 1 of Article 4 of the Competition Directive preclude such measures unless they are justified.
Zato člen 49 ES in od začetka svoje veljavnosti tudi člen 9(1) okvirne direktive, člen 5(1) direktive o odobritvi in člen 4, točka 1, direktive o konkurenci nasprotujejo takim ukrepom, razen če so utemeljeni.
In that respect, it is clear from the caselaw of the Court that a licensing system which restricts the number of operators in the national territory is capable of being justified by general-interest objectives (see, to that effect, Placanica and Others, paragraph 53), on condition that the restrictions resulting from them are appropriate and do not go beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives.
Zato je treba opozoriti, da iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da se lahko ureditev licenc, ki omejuje �tevilo operaterjev na nacionalnem trgu, upraviči z cilji v splo�nem interesu (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Placanica in drugi, točka 53), če so te omejitve primerne in ne presegajo tistega, kar je potrebno za njihovo dosego.
Thus, the NCRF expressly allows the Member States, under Article 1(3) of the Framework Directive, to adopt or maintain, in compliance with Community law, provisions pursuing general-interest objectives, in particular relating to audiovisual policy.
Tako lahko NSRO v skladu s členom 1(3) okvirne direktive izrecno dovoli državam članicam, da ob upo�tevanju prava Skupnosti sprejmejo ali ohranijo predpise, ki sledijo ciljem v splo�nem interesu, med drugim tudi glede avdiovizualne politike.
Likewise, the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of the Authorisation Directive allows the Member States to grant rights to the use of radio frequencies on an individual basis with a view to complying with the objective of the efficient use of radio frequencies, as referred to by the Framework Directive.
Prav tako člen 5(2), prvi pododstavek, direktive o odobritvi državam članicam omogoča, da pravice uporabe za radijske frekvence podelijo posamično ob upo�tevanju cilja učinkovite uporabe radijskih frekvenc, kot je določen v okvirni direktivi.
However, as the Advocate General stated in points 34 and 37 of his Opinion, in order for such arrangements, which generally adversely affect Article 49 EC and the NCRF, to be justified they must not only comply with general-interest objectives but also
Vendar pa, kot je predstavil generalni pravobranilec v točkah 34 in 37 sklepnih predlogov, je ureditev, ki načeloma posega v člen 49 ES in NSRO, upravičena, če
2008 — CASE C-380/05 be structured on the basis of objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria (see, to that effect, Placanica and Others, paragraph 49 and the caselaw cited).
2008 – ZADEVA C-380/05 upo�teva cilje v splo�nem interesu in če je določena na podlagi objektivnih, preglednih, nediskriminacijskih in sorazmernih meril (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Placanica in drugi, točka 49 in navedena sodna praksa).
Accordingly, Article 9(1) of the Framework Directive provides that the Member States are to ensure that the allocation and assignment of radio frequencies by the national regulatory authorities are based on objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria.
Tako člen 9(1) okvirne direktive določa, naj države članice poskrbijo, da nacionalni regulativni organi razporedijo in dodelijo take radijske frekvence na podlagi objektivnih, preglednih, nediskriminacijskih in sorazmernih meril.
Furthermore, where it is necessary to grant individual rights to the use of radio frequencies, those rights must be granted, under the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) of the Authorisation Directive, ‘through open, transparent and nondiscriminatory procedures’.
Dalje, če je treba podeliti individualne pravice uporabe za radijske frekvence, se take pravice uporabe podeljujejo v skladu s členom 5(2), drugi pododstavek, direktive o odobritvi „z odprtimi, s transparentnimi in z nediskriminacijskimi postopki“.