natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the consequences to be drawn from the fact that, first, the Opel logo is also registered for motor vehicles and, second, the mark appears to have a reputation in Germany for that kind of product, the Court pointed out that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to prevent use which, without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark as a trade mark registered for motor vehicles.
Sodišče je presodilo, da ima odbor za pritožbe Urada za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu, če svojo odločitev obrazloži, diskrecijsko pravico pri odločanju, ali bo pri odločitvi, ki jo mora sprejeti, upošteval dejstva in dokaze, ki jih je stranka, ki ugovarja, prvič predložila s pritožbo, tako da na eni strani ta odbor ni nujno dolžan upoštevati takih dejstev in dokazov ter na drugi strani upoštevanje navedenih dejstev in dokazov ne more biti izključeno po uradni dolžnosti.
A decision in the same line of thought was taken in Case C-17/06 Céline (judgment of 11 September 2007), with regard to the use of a company name, trade name or shop name identical to an earlier mark in connection with the marketing of goods which are identical to those in relation to which that mark was registered.
V zadevi Dyson (sodba z dne 25. januarja 2007, C-321/03, ZOdl., str. I-687) je Sodišče o vprašanju, kateri znaki lahko sestavljajo znamko, presodilo, da predmet zahteve za registracijo znamk, ki se nanaša na vse oblike brezbarvne zbiralne posode ali komore za zbiranje, ki si jih je mogoče zamisliti, ki je del zunanje površine sesalnika, ni„znak“ v smislu člena 2 Direktive 89/104 in zato ne more biti znamka v smislu te določbe.
The Court went on to hold that, by virtue of Article 6(1)(a) of Directive 89/104, the right conferred by the trade mark does not entitle the proprietor to prevent a third party from using his own name or address in the course of trade, provided always that that third party uses it in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.
Glede na izključnost, na kateri temelji pravo znamk, bi zato imetnik znamke s takim nedoločenim predmetom, v nasprotju s ciljem, ki ga zasleduje člen 2 Direktive, pridobil neupravičeno konkurenčno prednost, saj bi lahko upravičeno oviral možnost svojih konkurentov, da bi ponujali sesalnike, ki imajo na zunanji površini prozorno zbiralno posodo, kakršne koli oblike.
In Case C-246/05 Häupl (judgment of 14 June 2007), the Court found it necessary to interpret Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of First Directive 89/104.
V zadevi Adam Opel (sodba z dne 25. januarja 2007, C-48/05, ZOdl., str.
As a result, the ‘date of the completion of the registration procedure’ within the meaning of Article 10(1) of the directive must be determined in each Member State in accordance with the procedural rules on registration in force in that State.
I-1017) je Sodišče spomnilo na to, da na podlagi člena 5(1) Prve direktive 89/104/EGS registrirana znamka podeljuje imetniku izključne pravice, da tretjim osebam prepove brez njegovega dovoljenja v gospodarskem prometu uporabiti kateri koli znak, ki je enak znamki, za enako blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana znamka.
Specically, that provision denes the start of the period of ve years during which the mark must begin to be put to genuine use, save where there exist proper reasons.
To imetniku znamke omogoči zavarovanje posebnih interesov, ki jih ima kot imetnik znamke, in sicer da se zagotovi uresničitev naloge znamke, predvsem da potrošnikom zagotavlja podatek o izvoru blaga.
In this respect, the Court held that, pursuant to Article 12(1) of the directive, obstacles having a direct relationship with a trade mark which make its use impossible or unreasonable and which are independent of the will of the proprietor of that mark constitute‘proper reasons for non-use’of the mark.
Zato je lahko to – da tretji brez dovoljenja imetnika znamke, v tem primeru Opel, na pomanjšane modele vozil te znamke zaradi doslednega posnemanja teh vozil namesti znak, enak tej znamki, in da se ti pomanjšani modeli prodajajo – prepovedano samo, če vpliva ali bi lahko vplivalo na naloge znamke kot znamke, registrirane za igrače.
It is for the national court or tribunal to assess the relevant facts in the main proceedings and to determine whether they render the use of that mark unreasonable.
Glede posledic dejstva, da je na eni strani logotip Opel registriran tudi za motorna vozila in da ima na drugi strani znamka v Nemčiji ugled za to vrsto proizvodov, je Sodišče tudi poudarilo, da imetnik znamke lahko prepove uporabo, ki brez upravičenega razloga izkorišča razlikovalni učinek ali ugled te znamke kot znamke, registrirane za motorna vozila, ali jima škoduje.
In Case C-359/05 Estager [2007] ECR I-581, the Court ruled that it is contrary to Regulations No 1103/97 and No 974/98 on the introduction of the euro (36) for national legislation to raise the amount of a tax when eecting its conversion into euro, unless such an increase meets the requirements of legal certainty and transparency, thus enabling protection of the condence of economic agents in the introduction of the euro.
Podobna odločitev je bila sprejeta v zadevi Céline (sodba z dne 11. septembra 2007, C-17/06) v zvezi z uporabo imena družbe, trgovskega imena ali imena trgovine, ki je enako prejšnji znamki, v okviru trženja enakih proizvodov, za katere je bila znamka registrirana.
This means that the national legislation at issue must make it possible to distinguish clearly the decision of the authorities of the Member State to increase the amount of the tax from the process of conversion of that amount into euro.
Sodišče je dodalo, da na podlagi člena 6(1)(a) te direktive znamka ne daje imetniku pravice prepovedati tretji osebi uporabo v gospodarskem prometu lastnega imena in naslova, če ju uporablja v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro (OJ 1997 L 162, p. 1).
V zadevi Häupl (sodba z dne 14. junija 2007, C-246/05) je moralo Sodišče razlagati člena 10(1) in 12(1) Prve direktive 89/104.
Among the Court’s judgments given in the eld of social policy, some cases may be noted that deal with the implementation of the principle of equal treatment and the sphere of workers’ rights and their protection.
Sodišče navedeni direktivi ni nedvoumno določen začetek trajanja varstva in da besedilo omogoča prilagoditev navedenega roka posebnostim nacionalnih postopkov.
In respect of the rules of Community law governing equal treatment for men and women as regards employment and working conditions, the Court first of all dened the legal status of pregnant workers in the context of questions referred for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of certain provisions of Directives 76/207 (37) and 92/85 (38).
Zato mora dan končanja postopka registracije znamke v smislu člena 10(1) Direktive določiti vsaka država članica ob upoštevanju veljavnih procesnih pravil s področja registracije znamke, ki veljajo v tej državi.
So, in Case C-116/06 Kiiski (judgment of 20 September 2007), the Court stated that national provisions governing childcare leave which, in so far as they fail to take into account changes aecting the worker concerned as a result of pregnancy during the period of at least 14 weeks preceding and after childbirth, do not allow the person concerned to obtain at her request an alteration of the period of her childcare leave at the time when she claims her rights to maternity leave and thus deprive her of the rights attaching to that maternity leave, are contrary to those provisions of Community law.
Povedano natančneje, ta določba opredeljuje začetek petletnega obdobja, v katerem je treba znamko začeti resno uporabljati, razen če obstajajo upravičeni razlogi za neuporabo.
In Case C-460/06 Paquay (judgment of 11 October 2007) the Court held, moreover, that Directive 92/85 prohibits the notication of a decision to dismiss on the grounds of pregnancy and/or of the birth of a child during the period of protection set down in Article 10(1) of that directive and also the taking of preparatory steps for such a decision before the end of that period.
Zato je Sodišče presodilo, da se na podlagi člena 12(1) Direktive za„upravičene razloge za neuporabo“ znamke štejejo ovire, ki imajo neposredno zvezo s to znamko in onemogočijo njeno uporabo oziroma je zaradi njih njena uporaba nerazumna ter so neodvisne od volje imetnika omenjene znamke.
Having established that such a decision is contrary both to Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207, whenever it may be notied, and even if it is notied after the end of the period of protection set down in Article 10 of Directive 92/85, and to Article 10 of Directive 92/85, the Court concluded that the measure chosen by a Member State under Article 6 of Directive 76/207 to sanction the infringement of those provisions must be at least equivalent to the sanction set down in national law implementing Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 92/85.
Naloga predložitvenega sodišča je v posameznem primeru presoditi upoštevno dejansko stanje v postopku v glavni stvari glede na ta navodila in ugotoviti, ali bi postala uporaba navedene znamke neprimerna.
Concerning Community pensions, the Court held, in particular, that the use of factors which vary according to sex in order to calculate the number of additional years of pensionable service to be credited in the case of transfer into the Community scheme of pension rights acquired by an ocial in respect of activity before entering the service of the Communities amounts to discrimination on grounds of sex, not justied by the need to ensure sound financial management of the pension scheme (judgment of 11 September 2007 in Case C-227/04 P Lindorfer v Council).
I-581) je Sodišče presodilo, da uredbi št. 1103/97 in 974/98 o uvedbi eura36nasprotujeta nacionalnim predpisom, ki določajo povečanje zneska davka ob preračunavanju v eure, razen če je tako povečanje skladno z zahtevami pravne varnosti in preglednosti, kar omogoča varovanje zaupanja gospodarskih subjektov v uvedbo eura. To pomeni, da morajo zadevni pravni akti omogočiti jasno razlikovanje med odločitvijo organov države članice o povečanju zneska davka in preračunavanjem tega zneska v eure.
With regard to equal treatment for men and women in the eld of social security, the Court considered that the adoption of rules intended to allow persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible throughout their retirement for the pension scheme applicable to persons of the other sex on payment of adjustment contributions representing the dierence between the contributions paid by
Glede pravil prava Skupnosti, s katerimi je urejeno enako obravnavanje moških in žensk na področju zaposlovanja in delovnih pogojev, je Sodišče najprej natančneje opredelilo pravni položaj nosečih delavk, in sicer v okviru vprašanj za predhodno odločanje v zvezi z
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).
(sodba z dne 20. septembra 2007, C-116/06) navedlo, da določbe Skupnosti nasprotujejo nacionalnim določbam, ki urejajo dopust za nego in varstvo otroka ter noseči delavki – ker ne upoštevajo sprememb zanjo, ki so posledica nosečnosti v omejenem obdobju vsaj štirinajst tednov pred porodom in po njem, in ker jo tako prikrajšajo za pravice, ki se
Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1).
Direktiva Sveta z dne 9. februarja 1976 o izvrševanju načela enakega obravnavanja moških in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev (76/207/EGS) (UL L 39, str. 40).
In addition, that payment cannot be required to be made as a single sum, where that condition makes the adjustment concerned impossible or excessively dicult (judgment of 21 June 2007 in Joined Cases C-231/06 to C-233/06 Jonkman).The Court also observed that where a judgment given by the Court on an order for reference makes it apparent that a provision of national law is incompatible with Community law, the national authorities are bound to take the measures necessary to ensure that Community law is observed, by ensuring in particular that national law is changed so as to comply with Community law as soon as possible and that the rights which individuals derive from Community law are given full eect.
Razvoj in dejavnost navezujejo na porodniški dopust – ne omogočajo ugoditve njenemu zahtevku za spremembo obdobja dopusta za nego in varstvo otroka, ko uveljavlja svoje pravice do porodniškega dopusta.V sodbi Paquay(sodba z dne 11. oktobra 2007, C-460/06) je Sodišče tudi navedlo, da Direktiva 92/85/EGS prepoveduje vročitev odločbe o odpustu zaradi nosečnosti in/ali rojstva otroka med obdobjem varstva iz njenega člena 10(1) in tudi izvrševanje pripravljalnih dejanj za tako odločbo pred potekom tega obdobja.
Where discrimination infringing Community law has been found, for as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the national court must set aside any discriminatory provision of national law, without having to request or await its prior removal by the legislature, and apply to members of the disadvantaged group the same arrangements as those enjoyed by the persons in the other category.
Na podlagi ugotovitve, da je taka odločba v nasprotju s členoma 2(1) in 5(1) Direktive 76/207/EGS – ne glede na trenutek njene vročitve in čeprav je vročena po koncu predvidenega obdobja varstva – in tudi v nasprotju s členom 10 Direktive 92/85/EGS, je Sodišče sklepalo, da mora biti ukrep, ki ga na podlagi člena 6 Direktive 76/207/EGS izbere država članica za sankcioniranje kršitve teh določb, vsaj enakovreden tistemu, ki ga določa nacionalno pravo na podlagi členov 10 in 12 Direktive 92/85/EGS.
Equal treatment as regards employment and working conditions, from the aspect this time of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age, forms the subject matter of Case C-411/05 Palacios de la Villa (judgment of 16 October 2007), in which the central issue was the compatibility with Directive 2000/78 (40) of Spanish legislation accepting the validity of compulsory retirement clauses contained in collective agreements stipulating automatic termination of the employment relationship when the worker has reached retirement age, set at 65 by that national law, and has fullled the other conditions for the grant of a retirement pension under their contribution regime.
Poleg tega ni mogoče zahtevati, da se tako plačilo opravi v enkratnem znesku, če tak pogoj praktično onemogoči ali prekomerno oteži zadevno poravnavo (sodba z dne 21. junija 2007 v zadevi Jonkman, od C-231/06 do C-233/06). Sodišče je spomnilo tudi na to, da so nacionalni organi takrat, ko je s sodbo na podlagi vprašanja za predhodno odločanje ugotovljena nezdružljivost nacionalne zakonodaje s pravom Skupnosti, dolžni sprejeti ukrepe, s katerimi se zavaruje spoštovanje prava Skupnosti, in med drugim poskrbeti za čim hitrejšo uskladitev nacionalnega prava s pravom Skupnosti in da se posameznikom omogoči poln učinek pravic, ki jih imajo na podlagi prava Skupnosti.
The Court considered that such a national measure is not contrary to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age, implemented by that directive, provided that that measure is objectively and reasonably justied by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and the labour
Če se odkrije diskriminacija, ki je v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, mora nacionalno sodišče, dokler niso sprejeti ukrepi za ponovno vzpostavitev enakega obravnavanja, odpraviti vsako diskriminacijsko nacionalno določbo, ne da bi moralo zahtevati ali čakati, da zakonodajalec to predhodno odstrani, in za člane manj ugodno obravnavane skupine uporabiti enako ureditev, kot je ta, do katere so upravičene osebe iz druge skupine.
Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).
Direktiva Sveta 79/7/EGS z dne 19. decembra 1978 o postopnem izvrševanju načela enakega obravnavanja moških in žensk v zadevah socialne varnosti (UL L 6, str. 24).
Proceedings market, and that the means put in place to achieve that aim of public interest do not appear to be inappropriate and unnecessary for the purpose. After holding that the publicinterest objective of regulating the labour market for the purpose, in particular, of checking unemployment and encouraging employment must, as a rule, be treated as justifying a dierence in treatment on grounds of age, the Court concluded that that measure was appropriate and necessary because it took account of the fact that the persons concerned are entitled to a retirement pension and because management and labour are free to make use, by way of collective agreements, and therefore exibly, of the compulsory retirement mechanism.
Poleg tega je načelo enakega plačila za delavce in delavke predmet sodbe (sodba z dne 6. decembra 2007 v zadevi Voß, C-300/06), v kateri je Sodišče razlagalo člen 141 ES tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi glede plačila za uslužbence, v skladu s katero so po eni strani nadure – ki jih opravijo uslužbenci, zaposleni s polnim delovnim časom, in uslužbenci, zaposleni s krajšim delovnim časom – opredeljene kot ure, ki jih opravijo zunaj svojega individualnega delovnega časa, po drugi strani pa se te ure izplačujejo po nižji postavki, kot je urna postavka, ki se uporablja za ure, opravljene v mejah individualnega delovnega časa, tako da so uslužbenci – zaposleni s krajšim delovnim časom, glede opravljenih ur, ki presegajo njihov individualni delovni čas, ne presegajo pa števila ur, ki jih v okviru svojega delovnega časa opravi uslužbenec, zaposlen s polnim delovnim časom – plačani slabše od uslužbencev, zaposlenih s polnim delovnim časom, in sicer če je s to ureditvijo prizadet veliko višji odstotek delavk kot delavcev in če različnega obravnavanja ne upravičujejo objektivni in z diskriminacijo na podlagi spola nepovezani dejavniki.
Finally, a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a Spanish court concerning the granting of length-of-service allowances allowed the Court to declare that the concept of ‘working conditions’, mentioned in Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on xed-term work (41), the provisions of which, just as those of Directive 1999/70 (42) to which that framework agreement is annexed, can apply also to xed-term employment contracts and relationships concluded with the public authorities and other publicsector bodies, may be the basis for a claim for the grant to a xed-term worker of a length-of-service allowance reserved under national law solely to permanent sta(judgment of 13 September 2007 in Case C-307/05 Del Cerro Alonso).
Enako obravnavanje na področju zaposlovanja in dela, tokrat z vidika prepovedi diskriminacije zaradi starosti, je bilo predmet sodbe v zadevi Palacios de la Villa (sodba z dne 16. oktobra 2007, C-411/05), v kateri je Sodišče obravnavalo vprašanje, ali je z Direktivo 2000/78/ES40 združljiva španska ureditev, na podlagi katere so veljavne klavzule o obvezni upokojitvi v kolektivnih pogodbah, ki določajo prenehanje delovnega razmerja, ko delavec dopolni upokojitveno starost, ki je po tej ureditvi 65 let, in izpolnjuje druge pogoje za starostno pokojnino iz prispevkov.
Furthermore, as the Court stated, it is contrary to that same provision to introduce a dierence in treatment between xed-term workers and permanent workers justied solely on the basis that it is provided for by a provision of statute or secondary legislation of a Member State or by a collective agreement concluded between the staff union representatives and the relevant employer.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da prepoved diskriminacije zaradi starosti, ki je določena v navedeni direktivi, ne nasprotuje taki nacionalni določbi, če je objektivno in razumno utemeljena z legitimnim ciljem v zvezi z zaposlovalno politiko in delovnim trgom in če načini uresničevanja tega cilja niso nerazumni in nepotrebni.
The meaning of certain provisions of Community law concerning workers’ rights and their protection was claried by the Court in answer to various questions referred for a preliminary ruling.
Sodišče je najprej ugotovilo, da je treba načeloma šteti, da cilj v splošnem interesu – da se uredi trg zaposlovanja zlasti zaradi zmanjšanja brezposelnosti in spodbujanja zaposlenosti – v okviru nacionalnega prava upravičuje različno obravnavanje zaradi starosti, nato pa je razsodilo, da je ukrep ustrezen in potreben, ker je upoštevalo okoliščino, da so zadevne osebe upravičene do pokojnine, in možnost socialnih partnerjev, da se s kolektivnimi pogodbami, in torej prožno, odločijo za uporabo mehanizma obvezne upokojitve.
So, in Case C-458/05 Jouini and Others (judgment of 13 September 2007), the Court explained the notion of transfer of an undertaking as a result of a legal transfer within the meaning of Directive 2001/23 (43), and stated that the latter concerned cases in which some of the administrative personnel and some of the temporary workers are transferred to another temporary employment business in order to carry out the same activities in that business for the same clients and the assets aected by the transfer are sucient in themselves to allow the services characterising the economic activity in question to be provided without recourse to other signicant assets or to other parts of the business, which is a matter for the referring court to establish.
Na podlagi vprašanja za predhodno odločanje španskega sodišča v zvezi dodatkom za delovno dobo pa je Sodišče presodilo, da je lahko pojem „pogoji zaposlitve“ iz določbe 4(1) Okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas41 − katere določbe se tako kot določbe Direktive 1999/70/ES42, katere priloga je ta okvirni sporazum, uporabljajo tudi za pogodbe o zaposlitvi in delovna razmerja za določen čas, sklenjena med upravami in drugimi subjekti javnega sektorja − pravna podlaga za zahtevek, ki se nanaša na dodelitev dodatka za delavno dobo delavcu, zaposlenemu za določen čas, to je dodatka za delovno dobo, ki ga nacionalno pravo določa samo za delavce, zaposlene za nedoločen čas (sodba z dne 13. septembra 2007 v zadevi Del Cerro Alonso, C-307/05). Poleg tega je Sodišče navedlo, da ta
Case C-278/05 Robins and Others [2007] ECR I-1053 shed light on various problems relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, raised by a court of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in a reference for a preliminary
Direktiva Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splošnih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu (UL L 303, str. 16).
Framework agreement on xed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on xed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
Okvirni sporazum o delu za določen čas, sklenjen 18. marca 1999, ki je priloga k Direktivi Sveta 1999/70/ES z dne 28. junija 1999 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP (UL L 175, str. 43).
Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on xed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
Direktiva Sveta 1999/70/ES z dne 28. junija 1999 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP (UL L 175, str. 43).