natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
65 However, it goes without saying in this regard that, when establishing a national Greek annual programme for motorcycling events, ELPA must not give preference to the events (co-)organised or marketed by it over those of other, independent organisers.
65Pri tem je vsekakor samoumevno, da ELPA pri morebitnem določanju gr�kega nacionalnega letnega programa za motociklistične dirke ne sme dajati prednosti dirkam, ki jih sama (so)organizira ali trži, nasproti tistim, ki jih prirejajo drugi, neodvisni organizatorji.
Consequently, the fact that an organisation such as ELPA makes the grant of its
Zato se ne more vnaprej �teti, da gre za zlorabo, če organizacija, kakr�na je ELPA,
63 — See in this regard paragraphs 2 to 4 of ELPA/ETHEAM’s letter to MOTOE, reproduced in point 17 of this Opinion.
63 – Glej v zvezi s tem tudi točke od 2 do 4 dopisa ELPE/ETHEAM na MOTOE, naveden v točki 17 teh sklepnih predlogov.
64 — Meca-Medina (cited in footnote 16, paragraphs 28, 31 and 42 to 55).
64 – Sodba Meca-Medina (navedena v opombi 16, točke 28 in 31 ter od 42 do 55).
65 — See also in this regard paragraph 4 of ELPA/ETHEAM’s letter to MOTOE, reproduced in point 17 of this Opinion.
65 – Glej v zvezi s tem tudi točko 4 dopisa ELPE/ETHEAM na MOTOE, naveden v točki 17 teh sklepnih predlogov.
62 — On the question of taking into account the particular characteristics of sport in the application of Community law, see the two Declarations on Sport and the White Paper on Sport (cited in footnotes 11 to 13).
62 – V zvezi z upo�tevanjem posebnosti �porta pri uporabi prava Skupnosti glej obe izjavi o �portu in Belo knjigo o �portu (navedene v opombah od 11 do 13).
Article 49 of the Greek Road Traffic Code is particularly high, for two reasons.
S piramidno strukturo, 66ki se je oblikovala v večini �portnih panog, 67se zago- zakona o cestnem prometu zlasti zaradi dveh razlogov.
Under its right of co-decision in the authorisation by a public body of motorcycling events, it may legitimately assert the interests of sport and, if necessary, refuse to give its consent.
V okviru njej dane pravice do soodločanja o upravnih dovoljenjih za motociklistične dirke lahko uveljavlja interese �porta na legitimen način in po potrebi odreče svoje soglasje.
However, a refusal to grant consent becomes an abuse where it has no objective justification in the interests of sport, but is used arbitrarily to promote the organisation’s own economic interests, to the detriment of other service providers that would like to organise, and above all market, motorcycling events on their own responsibility.
Do zlorabe pa pride takrat, kadar se soglasje odreče brez objektivne utemeljitve na podlagi interesov �porta, torej samovoljno, v korist lastnim gospodarskim interesom in v �kodo drugih ponudnikov, ki želijo motociklistične dirke na svojo odgovornost organizirati in predvsem tržiti.
ELPA thus not only has the legal means that allow it effectively to prevent other service providers from entering the Greek market, but also an economic interest in limiting access to the market by its competitors to its own advantage.
S tem ELPA ne razpolaga samo s pravnim sredstvom, ki ji dopu�ča, da učinkovito ustavlja prodor drugih ponudnikov na gr�ki trg, ampak ima tudi gospodarski interes, da v svojo prednost konkurentom omejuje dostop na trg.
(b) Legislation such as that in force in Greece invites abuse
b) S pravnim stanjem, kot je v Grčiji, se spodbuja zlorabo
Irrespective of whether any abuse actually exists, it is sufficient, for the purposes of establishing an infringement of Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC, that a State measure merely creates a risk of abuse.
Neodvisno od dejanskega obstoja zlorabe zado�ča za domnevo kr�itve člena 86(1) ES v povezavi s členom 82 ES že to, da se z državnim ukrepom ustvari tveganje za zlorabo.
68In the present case, the risk that ELPA will abuse its dominant position 69in exercising its right of co-decision under
68V obravnavanem primeru obstaja tak�no tveganje za zlorabo prevladujočega položaja na trgu, kot ga ima ELPA, 69 v povezavi z izvr�evanjem njene pravice do soodločanja v skladu s členom 49 gr�kega
66 — See in this regard the White Paper on Sport (cited in footnote 13, section 4.1).
66 – Glej v zvezi s tem Belo knjigo o �portu (navedena v opombi 13, razdelek 4.1).
Secondly, ELPA is not subject, under those rules on consent, to any restrictions, obligations or controls in relation to the grant or refusal of its consent to the authorisation of motorcycling events.
Drugič, v okviru teh določb o soglasju niso določeni omejitve, obveznosti in nadzor glede podelitve ali zavrnitve soglasja ELPE k dovoljenju za motociklistične dirke.
This makes it particularly easy for ELPA to refuse to give consent to the authorisation of the motorcycling events of other, independent service providers.
Tako lahko ELPA zlahka odreče svoje soglasje k dovoljenju za motociklistične dirke drugih, neodvisnih ponudnikov.
As the present case clearly shows, the mere fact that ELPA omitted to act was sufficient to thwart the plans of another service provider — in this instance, MOTOE — in the year 2000.
Kot obravnavani primer nazorno kaže, je zado�čala že nedejavnost ELPE, da je v letu 2000 onemogočila namero drugega ponudnika – v tem primeru MOTOE.
67 — Pyramid structure does not necessarily mean a single association structure: in boxing, for example, a number of international associations co-exist.
67 – Piramidna struktura ne pomeni nujno obstoja ene same zveze: v boksu obstaja več mednarodnih zvez.
68 — See in this regard point 87 of this Opinion, above, and the caselaw cited in footnote 59.
68 – Glej v zvezi s tem zgoraj točko 87 teh sklepnih predlogov in v opombi 59 navedeno sodno prakso.
69 — On ELPA’s dominant position, see points 59 and 61 of this Opinion, above.
69 – V zvezi s prevladujočim položajem ELPE glej zgoraj točki 59 in 61 teh sklepnih predlogov.
70 — See in this regard Raso and Others (cited in footnote 51, paragraph 28).
70 – Glej v zvezi s tem sodbo Raso in drugi (navedena v opombi 51, točka 28).
However, a system of undistorted competition as provided for by the EC Treaty 71 can be guaranteed only if equality of opportunity is secured as between the various economic operators.
Sistem neizkrivljene konkurence, kot je določen v Pogodbi ES, 71se lahko zagotovlja le, če so različnim gospodarskim subjektom zagotovljene enake možnosti.
72This is not the case where an undertaking such as ELPA, which itself organises and markets motorcycling events, receives from the State the power to determine at its discretion which motorcycling events may take place in Greece, since this gives it a distinct advantage over its competitors, as regards both the organisation of motorcycling events and their marketing.
72S tem ni v skladu, da podjetje, kakr�no je ELPA, ki samo organizira in trži motociklistične dirke, dobi od države pooblastilo, da po prosti presoji odloča, katere motociklistične dirke v Grčiji smejo potekati; kajti s tem mu je nasproti njegovim konkurentom zagotovljena nedvoumna prednost, tako v zvezi z organizira -njem motociklističnih dirk kot tudi v zvezi z njihovim trženjem.
73 entity that participates in the authorisation by a public body of motorcycling events and, where appropriate, monitors them, on the one hand, and the undertakings that organise and market such events, on the other.
73 strani sodeluje pri upravnih dovoljenjih za motociklistične dirke in po potrebi nadzoruje te dirke, in po drugi strani podjetjem, ki take dirke organizira in trži.
75 That principle of separation is breached where, in circumstances such as those in this case, one and the same entity, namely ELPA and the ETHEAM committee set up by it, not only participates in the public body’s authorisation of motorcycling events and is entrusted with monitoring their safety, but is also itself active — in competition with other, independent service providers — in organising and marketing such events.
75V nasprotju s tem načelom ločitve je, da v primeru, kot je obravnavani ena in ista služba, namreč ELPA oziroma ETHEAM, ki ga je pooblastila, ne le sodeluje pri upravnih dovoljenjih za motociklistične dirke in ji je zaupan nadzor nad varnostjo dirk, ampak je tudi sama – v konkurenci z drugimi, neodvisnimi ponudniki – dejavna na področju organiziranja in trženja takih dirk.
From the point of view of Community law, there can be no objection if the national legislature provides in certain cases that the relevant authorities should obtain expert advice before granting authorisation for an activity.
Sicer z vidika prava Skupnosti ni sporno, če nacionalni zakonodajalec v nekaterih primerih predvidi, da se pristojni organ pred izdajo dovoljenja za dejavnost strokovno posvetuje.
Generally, it may therefore be appropriate to involve the sports associations concerned in decisions relating to sport.
Na splo�no je zato lahko smiselno, da se zadevne �portne zveze vključi v odločanje v zvezi s �portom.
The particular characteristics of sport and of the sport in question can best be taken into account in this way. 74
Tako se lahko posebnosti �porta in posameznih �portnih panog upo�teva na najbolj�i možni način. 74
It must also be ensured that the authorisation by a public body of a motorcycling event may be refused only in accordance with objective, nondiscriminatory criteria.
Nadalje je treba zagotoviti, da se sme zahtevo za upravno dovoljenje za motociklistično dirko zavrniti le na podlagi objektivnih, nediskriminatornih kriterijev.
It must be possible, where appropriate, to obtain that authorisation for a motorcycling event without the consent of an entity called upon to participate, such as ELPA, where that entity arbitrarily refuses to give its consent.
Omogočiti je treba, da se pridobi upravno dovoljenje za motociklistične dirke po potrebi tudi brez soglasja za sodelovanje pristojne službe, kakr�na je ELPA, če ta služba svoje soglasje samovoljno odreče.
Moreover, the applicant must have an effective legal remedy against an adverse official decision; 76 this includes the adoption of interim measures. 77
Poleg tega mora imeti prosilec proti zavrnilni upravni odločbi pravico do učinkovitega pravnega varstva; 76ki vključuje tudi sprejetje začasnih ukrepov. 77
However, the maintenance of effective competition and the ensuring of transparency require a clear separation between the
Vzdrževanje učinkovite konkurence in zagotavljanje transparentnosti vsekakor zahtevata jasno ločitev med službo, ki po eni
75 — See to this effect France v Commission (‘Telecommunications Terminals Equipment’, cited in footnote 56, paragraph 52) and GB-Inno-BM (cited in footnote 72, paragraph 26).
75 – Glej v tem smislu sodbi Francija proti Komisiji (Teleko -munikacijska terminalska oprema, navedena v opombi 56, točka 52) in GB-Inno-BM (navedena v opombi 72, točka 26).
71 — The concept of undistorted competition is expressly referred to in Article 3(1)(g) EC, but also underlies the rules on competition contained in Articles 81 EC to 89 EC.
71 – Ideja neizkrivljene konkurence je izrecno navedena v členu 3(1)(g) ES, je pa tudi podlaga za pravila o konkurenci iz členov od 81 ES do 89 ES.
72 — France v Commission (‘Telecommunications Terminals Equipment’, cited in footnote 56, paragraph 51), and Case C-18/88 GB-Inno-BM [1991] ECR I-5941, paragraph 25; see to the same effect ERT (cited in footnote 40, paragraph 37) and Raso and Others (cited in footnote 51, paragraphs 29 to 31).
72 – Sodba Francija proti Komisiji (Telekomunikacijska terminalska oprema, navedena v opombi 56, točka 51) in sodba z dne 13. decembra 1991 v zadevi GB-Inno-BM (C-18/88, Recueil, I-5941, točka 25); glej v tem smislu sodbi ERT (navedena v opombi 40, točka 37) in Raso in drugi (nave -dena v opombi 51, točke od 29 do 31).
76 — See to this effect Albany (cited in footnote 30, paragraphs 117 and 121); on an effective legal remedy, see also Case 222/86 Heylens and Others [1987] ECR 4097, paragraphs 14 and 15, and Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, paragraphs 37 and 38.
76 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo Albany (navedena v opombi 30, točki 117 in 121); glede učinkovitega pravnega varstva glej tudi sodbi z dne 15. oktobra 1987 v zadevi Heylens in drugi (222/86, Recueil, 4097, točki 14 in 15) in z dne 13. marca 2007 v zadevi Unibet (C-432/05, ZOdl., I-2271, točki 37 in 38).
However, Community law does not require an individual legal remedy against acts which are merely preparatory to an official authorisation, for example, against the grant or refusal of consent by an association such as ELPA (see to this effect Heylens, paragraph 16).
Pravo Skupnosti vsekakor ne zahteva individualnega pravnega varstva za samo pripravljalna dejanja za upravno dovoljenje, na primer za izdajo ali zavrnitev soglasja s strani dru�tva, kakr�no je ELPA (glej v tem smislu sodbo Heylens, točka 16).
73 — See to the same effect France v Commission (‘Telecommunications Terminals Equipment’, cited in footnote 56, paragraph 51) and GB-Inno-BM (cited in footnote 72, paragraph 25).
73 – Glej v tem smislu sodbi Francija proti Komisiji (Teleko -munikacijska terminalska oprema, navedena v opombi 56, točka 51) in GB-Inno-BM (navedena v opombi 72, točka 25).
77 — Case C-213/89 Factortame and Others [1990] ECR I-2433, paragraph 21; Case C-226/99 Siples [2001] ECR I-277, paragraph 19; and Unibet (cited in footnote 76, paragraph 67).
77 – Sodbi z dne 19. junija 1990 v zadevi Factortame in drugi (C-213/89, Recueil, I-2433, točka 21) in z dne 11. januarja 2001 v zadevi Siples (C-226/99, Recueil, I-277, točka 19) ter sodba Unibet (navedena v opombi 76, točka 67).
74 — See in this regard points 90 to 95 of this Opinion, above.
74 – Glej v zvezi s tem zgoraj točke od 90 do 95 teh sklepnih predlogov.
The exceptions under Article 86(2) EC
Izjeme na podlagi člena 86(2) ES
It is true that the Greek Government submits in this regard that — contrary to what is stated in the order for reference — ELPA is obliged to give its consent to the authorisation of a motorcycling event where that authorisation has been duly applied for and all the conditions applicable under the relevant national rules have been fulfilled.
Glede tega sicer gr�ka vlada uveljavlja, da naj bi bila ELPA – v nasprotju s trditvami v predložitveni sodbi – dolžna izdati svoje soglasje k dovoljenju za motociklistično dirko, če se je to dovoljenje zahtevalo v skladu s predpisi in so bili izpolnjeni vsi pogoji, določeni v zadevni nacionalni ureditvi.
Moreover, the express or implicit non-grant of consent by ELPA is subject to judicial review by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias. 78
Poleg tega naj bi bil za izrecno zavrnitev soglasja ELPE ali zavrnitev z molkom določen sodni nadzor, ki naj bi ga opravljal Symvoulio tis Epikrateias. 78
Finally, it remains to be examined whether a provision such as Article 49 of the Road Traffic Code may be covered by the exceptions in Article 86(2) EC.
Končno je treba �e preveriti, ali se ureditev, kot je določena v členu 49 zakona o cestnem prometu, lahko upraviči na podlagi izjeme iz člena 86(2) ES.
Under that provision, undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest 80are to be subject to the rules contained in the EC Treaty, in particular the rules on competition, only to a limited extent; such undertakings are subject to the rules on competition only in so far as their application does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them.
V skladu s to določbo se podjetja, poobla�čena za opravljanje storitev splo�nega gospodarskega pomena, 80 ravnajo samo v omejenem obsegu po pravilih iz Pogodbe ES, zlasti po pravilih o konkurenci; za tak�na podjetja pravila o konkurenci namreč veljajo le, kolikor njihova uporaba pravno ali dejansko ne ovira izvajanja posebnih nalog, ki so jim dodeljene.
However, it is not for the Court of Justice to adopt a position on the interpretation of the national law in this dispute.
Vendar Sodi�ču v tem sporu glede razlage nacionalnega prava ni treba zavzeti stali�ča.
In accordance with the division of competences between the Community judicature and the courts of the Member States, the Court of Justice must proceed from the findings of the referring court in relation to the factual and legal context in which a request for a preliminary ruling is made.
V okviru delitve pristojnosti med sodi�či Skupnosti in nacionalnimi sodi�či mora namreč Sodi�če glede na dejanski in pravni okvir, v katerega se uvr�čajo vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, izhajati iz ugotovitev predložitvenega sodi�ča.
79The order for reference expressly assumes that, when granting consent, ELPA is not subject to any restrictions, obligations or controls.
79Predloži-tvena sodba izrecno izhaja iz tega, da glede izdajanja soglasja ELPE omejitve, obveznosti in nadzor niso določeni.
In this regard, two categories of tasks must be distinguished within the activity of an association such as ELPA: the organisation and marketing of motorcycling events, on the one hand, and the participation in the official authorisation of such events under Article 49 of the Road Traffic Code, on the other.
Glede dejavnosti dru�tva, kakr�no je ELPA, je treba ločevati dve področji nalog: organiziranje in trženje motociklističnih dirk po eni strani in soodločanje o upravnih dovoljenjih za tak�ne dirke v skladu s členom 49 zakona o cestnem prometu po drugi strani.
All in all, therefore, it must be assumed that a provision such as Article 49 of the Greek Road Traffic Code is not in conformity with the requirements of Article 86(1) in conjunction with Article 82 EC, because it invites abuse.
Zato je treba izhajati iz tega, da ureditev, kot je določena v členu 49 gr�kega zakona o cestnem prometu, ni v skladu z zahtevami iz člena 86(1) ES v povezavi s členom 82 ES, ker se z njo spodbuja zlorabo.
As regards, firstly, the organisation and marketing of motorcycling events by an association such as ELPA, the question whether they constitute a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 86(2) EC, as the social significance
V zvezi z organiziranjem in trženjem motociklističnih dirk s strani dru�tva, kakr�no je ELPA, se je odveč spra�evati, ali gre za storitev splo�nega gospodarskega pomena v smislu člena 86(2) ES, kot bi bilo družbeni pomen �porta mogoče razlagati. Vsekakor
80 — The revenueproducing monopolies also referred to in Article 86(2) EC are not relevant in a case such as this.
80 – V členu 86(2) Pogodbe ES prav tako navedeni dohodkovni monopoli niso upo�tevni v primeru, kot je obravnavani.
78 — Greek Council of State.79 — See in this regard the caselaw cited in footnote 26.
78 – Gr�ki državni svet.79 – Glej v zvezi s tem v opombi 26 navedeno sodno prakso.
In the light of the foregoing, Article 86(2) EC cannot be relied on in order to justify a provision such as Article 49 of the Road Traffic Code.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega se člen 86(2) ES ne more uporabljati kot podlaga za upravičenost ureditve, kot je določena v členu 49 zakona o cestnem prometu.
In any event, there is no evidence in this case that the Greek State has ‘entrusted’ ELPA with the organisation and marketing of sports events by means of an act of public authority.
pa v obravnavani zadevi nič ne kaže na to, da bi gr�ka država z oblastvenim aktom ELPO „pooblastila“ za organiziranje in trženje �portnih prireditev.
81 Nor is it clear to what extent a preferential right such as that conferred by Article 49 of the Road Traffic Code, which enables it to keep other service providers out of the market, is necessary in order for ELPA to perform such a task.
81 Tudi ni razvidno, v kolik�ni meri bi bila za izpolnjevanje tak�ne naloge za ELPO potrebna posebna pravica, kot je ta na podlagi člena 49 zakona o cestnem prometu, ki ji dovoljuje, da drugih ponudnikov ne pusti na trg.
82In any event, the way in which that preferential right in fact operates, 83 which entitles ELPA to refuse to give its consent to the authorisation of motorcycling events of other service providers without restrictions, obligations or controls, is disproportionate.
82 Vsekakor pa se zdi konkretna ureditev te posebne pravice, 83v skladu s katero lahko ELPA zavrne svoje soglasje k dovoljenju za motociklistične dirke drugega ponudnika brez omejitev, obveznosti in nadzora, nesorazmerna.
As regards, finally, ELPA’s participation in the public body’s authorisation of motorcycling events, the association does not provide any service of general economic interest in this connection, but is involved in the exercise of public authority.
Kar končno zadeva sodelovanje ELPE pri upravnih dovoljenjih za motociklistične dirke, dru�tvo pri tem ne opravlja storitev splo�nega gospodarskega pomena, ampak sodeluje pri izvajanju državne oblasti.
Article 86(2) EC is not applicable here, since the precondition for the application of that provision
Zato se ne more uporabiti člen 86(2) ES, kajti pogoj
Articles 82 EC and 86 EC preclude a provision such as Article 49 of the Greek Road Traffic Code, under which a non-profit-making association which itself organises and markets motorcycling events is at the same time granted an exclusive right of co-deci-sion in a public body’s authorisation of such events, in which capacity it may refuse to give its consent without being subject in this regard to any restrictions, obligations or controls.
Ureditev, kot je določena v členu 49 gr�kega zakona o cestnem prometu, v skladu s katero ima nepridobitno dru�tvo, ki motociklistične dirke organizira in trži, obenem izključno pravico do soodločanja o upravnih dovoljenjih za tak�ne dirke, pri čemer lahko svoje soglasje odkloni brez omejitev, obveznosti in nadzora, je v nasprotju s členoma 82 ES in 86 ES.
82 — On the criterion of the necessity of the preferential right, see Case C-320/91 Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533, paragraphs 13 and 14; Case C-157/94 Commission v Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699, paragraph 53; Case C-209/98 Sydhavnens Sten & Grus [2000] ECR I-3743, paragraph 77; and Ambulanz Glöckner (cited in footnote 23, paragraph 57). 83 — Article 16 EC also refers to the concrete operation of services of general economic interest; it provides that the Commission and the Member States must ‘take care that such services operate on the basis of principles and conditions which enable them to fulfil their missions’.
82 – Glede merila nujnosti posebne pravice glej sodbe z dne 19. maja 1993 v zadevi Corbeau (C-320/91, Recueil, I-2533, točki 13 in 14), z dne 23. oktobra 1997 v zadevi Komisija proti Nizozemski (C-157/94, Recueil, I-5699, točka 53), z dne 23. maja 2000 v zadevi Sydhavnens Sten & Grus (C-209/98, Recueil, I-3743, točka 77) in sodbo Ambulanz Glöckner (navedena v opombi 23, točka 57). 83 – Na konkretno ureditev službe splo�nega gospodarskega pomena se nana�a tudi člen 16 ES, v katerem je določeno, „da tak�ne službe delujejo na podlagi načel in pogojev, ki jim omogočajo izpolnjevanje njihovih nalog“.
84 — On the distinction between economic and public activities, see SAT Fluggesellschaft (paragraphs 30 and 31), Calì (paragraphs 22 and 23) and point 49 of this Opinion.
84 – Glede ločevanja med gospodarsko dejavnostjo in dejavnostjo izvajanja javne oblasti glej v opombi 38 navedeno sodbo SAT Fluggesellschaft (točki 30 in 31) in sodbo Calì (točki 22 in 23) ter točko 49 teh sklepnih predlogov.
For the foregoing reasons, I propose that the Court’s answer to the questions referred by the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon should be as follows:
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, ki ju je predložilo Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon, odgovori:
It is for the national court, having regard to the caselaw of the Court of Justice on Article 82 EC, to examine whether that association holds a dominant position on the market and whether the abuse of that position would be capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States.
V pristojnosti nacionalnega sodi�ča je, da ob upo�tevanju sodne prakse Sodi�ča glede člena 82 ES presodi, ali ima to dru�tvo prevladujoč položaj na trgu in ali bi zloraba tega položaja lahko znatno vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
2008 — CASE C-49/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-49/07