natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As has been pointed out in paragraph 17 above, Article 4 of the Framework Directive lays down the obligation to provide for a judicial or non-judicial right of appeal, but in no way concerns the non-adversarial administrative procedure which precedes the bringing of such an appeal.
Kot je bilo opozorjeno v točki 17 te sodbe, člen 4 okvirne direktive namreč določa obveznost določiti pravico do pravnega sredstva, vendar pa se ne nana�a na predhodni upravni postopek pred vložitvijo take pritožbe.
In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question referred must be that the terms user ‘affected’ or undertaking ‘affected’ for the purposes of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive and the term party ‘affected’ within the meaning of Article 16(3) of that directive must be interpreted as being applicable not only to an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market which is subject to a decision of a national regulatory authority taken in the context of a market analysis procedure referred to in Article 16 of that directive and which is the addressee of that decision, but also to users and undertakings in competition with such an undertaking which are not themselves addressees of that decision but the rights of which are adversely affected by it.
Glede na zgoranje ugotovitve je treba na prvo zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba pojem uporabnika ali „prizadetega“ podjetja (betroffen) v smislu člena 4(1) okvirne direktive in pojem „zadevne“ stranke (betroffen) v smislu člena 16(3) te direktive razlagati tako, da se lahko nana�ata ne samo na podjetje s (prej) pomembno tržno močjo na upo�tevnem trgu, ki je predmet odločbe nacionalnega regulativnega organa, sprejete v postopku analize trga na podlagi člena 16 iste direktive in katere naslovnik je, ampak tudi na uporabnike in konkurente tega podjetja s (prej) pomembno tržno močjo, ki sami niso naslovniki te odločbe, vendar ta zadeva njihove pravice.
By its second question the national court asks, essentially, whether it follows from Article 4 of the Framework Directive that, when it has a right to appeal against decisions taken by a national regulatory authority following administrative market anal-
Z drugim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali iz člena 4 okvirne direktive izhaja, da se mora podjetju, kot je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, kadar ima pravico do pritožbe zoper odločbe, ki jih je sprejel nacionalni regulativni
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION ysis proceedings, an undertaking such as the applicant in the main proceedings must for that reason also be granted the status of a party to the non-adversarial market analysis proceedings.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION organ po upravnem postopku analize trga, zaradi tega priznati položaj stranke v predhodnem postopku analize trga.
In that regard, Article 4 of the Framework Directive does not state which are the parties to the non-adversarial administrative proceedings referred to in Article 16 of that directive.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da člen 4 okvirne direktive ne ureja tega, kdo so stranke predhodnega upravnega postopka iz člena 16 te direktive.
The wording of that provision also does not provide any indication to the effect that an undertaking such as the applicant in the main proceedings must have a right to participate, as a party, in those market analysis proceedings.
Besedilo te določbe niti ne nakazuje, da bi moralo imeti podjetje, kot je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, pravico sodelovati kot stranka v navedenem postopku analize trga.
The third sentence of Article 16(3) of the Framework Directive merely affirms that the parties affected by the withdrawal of specific regulatory obligations must be given an appropriate period of notice.
Člen 16(3), tretji stavek, okvirne direktive določa le, da se stranke, ki jih zadeva preklic obveznosti, o tem obvesti v primernem roku.
It follows that Community law does not, a priori, require the Member States to permit all users and undertakings in competition with an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market to participate in a market analysis procedure referred to in Article 16 of the Framework Directive as a party for the purposes of the applicable Austrian procedural law with the rights described in paragraph 18 of the present judgment.
Iz tega izhaja, da pravo Skupnosti ne zavezuje a priori držav članic k temu, da vsem uporabnikom in konkurentom podjetja, ki je imelo (prej) pomembno tržno moč na upo�tevnem trgu, dopustijo, da v postopku analize trga v skladu s členom 16 okvirne direktive sodelujejo kot stranke v smislu avstrijskega procesnega prava, ki se uporabi in ima posebne pravice, opisane v točki 18 te sodbe.
It is thus for the national legislature to specify whether an undertaking such as the applicant in the main proceedings has the status of a party to those non-adversarial administrative proceedings and, if so, to decide
Zato mora nacionalni zakonodajalec določiti, ali ima podjetje, kot je pritožnica v postopku v glavni stvari, v tem predhodnem upravnem postopku položaj stranke in v primeru pritrdilnega odgovora
2008 — CASE C-426/05 whether that undertaking may be granted procedural rights other than those laid down expressly in Article 16 of the Framework Directive and rights inherent in the consultation procedure laid down expressly in Article 6 of that directive.
2008 – ZADEVA C-426/05 odločiti, ali se lahko temu podjetju priznajo procesne pravice, ki v členu 16 niso izrecno predvidene, ter pravice, ki spadajo k posvetovalnemu postopku, izrecno predvidenem v členu 6 iste direktive.
Consequently, a provision of national law which, in the context of such proceedings, grants party status only to undertakings (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market in respect of which specific regulatory obligations are imposed, amended or withdrawn is not, in principle, contrary to Article 4 of the Framework Directive.
Zato določba nacionalnega prava, ki v okviru tega postopka priznava položaj stranke le podjetjem, ki so imela (prej) pomembno tržno moč na upo�tevnem trgu, in za ta podjetja uvede, spremeni ali prekliče posebne regulativne obveznosti, načeloma ni v nasprotju s členom 4 okvirne direktive.
However, the detailed national procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from the direct effect of Community law must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) or render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see, to that effect, inter alia, Peterbroeck, paragraph 12 and the caselaw cited, and Grundig Italiana, paragraph 33 and the caselaw cited).
Vendar je treba spomniti, da podrobna nacionalna procesna pravila pravnih sredstev, katerih namen je varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi neposrednega učinka prava Skupnosti, ne smejo biti manj ugodna od tistih, ki veljajo za podobna nacionalna pravna sredstva (načelo enakovrednosti), in uveljavljanja pravic, ki jih daje pravni red Skupnosti, ne smejo praktično onemogočiti oziroma čezmerno otežiti (načelo učinkovitosti) (glej v tem smislu zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Peterbroeck, točka 12 in navedena sodna praksa, in Grundig Italiana, točka 33 in navedena sodna praksa).
As regards the principle of effectiveness, on which the applicant in the main proceedings relies for the purpose of claiming entitlement to participate in the administrative market analysis proceedings in question, it is clear from the Court’s caselaw that each case which raises the question whether a national procedural provision renders the exercise of rights conferred on individuals by the Community legal order impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national instances.
Glede načela učinkovitosti, na katerega se v tem primeru sklicuje pritožnica za uveljavljanje pravice do sodelovanja v zadevnem upravnem postopku analize trga, je treba spomniti, da iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da je treba vsak primer, v katerem se zastavi vpra�anje, ali določena nacionalna procesna določba onemogoča ali pretirano otežuje izvajanje pravic, ki jih posamezniku daje pravni red Skupnosti, preizkusiti ob upo�tevanju položaja te določbe v celotnem postopku ter poteka postopka in njegovih posebnosti pred različnimi nacionalnimi sodi�či.
In that context, it is necessary to take into consideration, where relevant, the principles which lie at the basis of the national legal system, such as the protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of the proceedings (see, to that effect, Peterbroeck, paragraph 14, and Joined Cases C-222/05 to C-225/05 van der Weerd and Others [2007] ECR I-4233, paragraph 33).
V zvezi s tem je treba po potrebi upo�tevati načela nacionalnega pravnega sistema, kot so načelo varstva pravic obrambe, načelo pravne varnosti in učinkovit potek postopka (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Peterbroeck, točka 14, in sodbo z dne 7. junija 2007 v združenih zadevah Van der Weerd in drugi, C-222/05 in C-225/05, ZOdl., str., I-4233, točka 33).
It is thus for the national court to ensure that national procedural law guarantees the safeguarding of the rights which users and undertakings in competition with an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market derive from the Community legal order in a manner which is not less favourable than that in which comparable domestic rights are safeguarded and which does not prejudice the effectiveness of the legal protection of those users and undertakings guaranteed in Article 4 of the Framework Directive.
Zato mora predložitveno sodi�če zagotoviti, da nacionalno procesno pravo zagotavlja varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo na podlagi prava Skupnosti uporabniki in konkurenti podjetja, ki je imelo (prej) pomembno tržno moč na upo�tevnem trgu, na tak način, da ni manj ugoden kot v primeru primerljivih pravic nacionalnega prava in ne vpliva na učinkovitost pravnega varstva, ki jo tem uporabinkom in konkurentom zagotovlja člen 4 okvirne direktive.
In those circumstances, the answer to the second question referred must be that a provision of national law which, in the context of non-adversarial market analysis proceedings, grants party status only to undertakings (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market and in respect of which specific regulatory obligations are imposed, amended or withdrawn is not, in principle, contrary to Article 4 of the Framework Directive.
Zato je treba na drugo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti, da določba nacionalnega prava, ki v okviru predhodnega postopka analize trga priznava položaj stranke le podjetju, ki je imelo (prej) pomembno tržno moč na upo�tevnem trgu, in za ta podjetja uvede, spremeni ali prekliče posebne regulativne obveznosti, načeloma ni v nasprotju s členom 4 okvirne direktive.
However, it is for the national court to ensure that national procedural law guarantees the safeguarding of the rights which users and undertakings in competition with an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market derive from the Community legal order in a manner which is not less favourable than that in which comparable domestic rights are safeguarded and which does not prejudice the effectiveness of the legal protection of those users and undertakings guaranteed in Article 4 of the Framework Directive.
Vendar mora predložitveno sodi�če preveriti, ali nacionalno procesno pravo zagotavlja varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo na podlagi prava Skupnosti uporabniki in konkurenti podjetja, ki je imelo (prej) pomembno tržno moč na upo�tevnem trgu, na tak način, da ni manj ugoden kot v primeru primerljivih pravic nacionalnega prava in ne vpliva na učinkovitost pravnega varstva, ki jo tem uporabinkom in konkurentom zagotovlja člen 4 okvirne direktive.
The terms user ‘affected’ or undertaking ‘affected’ for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and the term party ‘affected’ within the meaning of Article 16(3) of that directive must be interpreted as being applicable not only to an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market which is subject to a decision of a national regulatory authority taken in the context of a market analysis procedure referred to in Article 16 of that directive and which is the addressee of that decision, but also to users and undertakings in competition with such an undertaking which are not themselves addressees of that decision but the rights of which are adversely affected by it.
Pojem uporabnika ali „prizadetega“ podjetja v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/21/ES z dne 7. marca 2002 o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve (okvirna direktiva) in pojem „zadevne“ stranke v smislu člena 16(3) te direktive je treba razlagati tako, da se lahko nanašata ne samo na podjetje s (prej) pomembno tržno močjo na upoštevnem trgu, ki je predmet odločbe nacionalnega regulativnega organa, sprejete v postopku analize trga na podlagi člena 16 iste direktive in katere naslovnik je, ampak tudi na uporabnike in konkurente tega podjetja s (prej) pomembno tržno močjo, ki sami niso naslovniki te odločbe, vendar ta zadeva njihove pravice.
A provision of national law which, in the context of non-adversarial market analysis proceedings, grants party status only to undertakings (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market and in respect of which specific regulatory obligations are imposed, amended or withdrawn is not, in principle, contrary to Article 4 of Directive 2002/21.
Določba nacionalnega prava, ki v okviru predhodnega postopka analize trga priznava položaj stranke le podjetju, ki je imelo (prej) pomembno tržno moč na upoštevnem trgu, in za ta podjetja uvede, spremeni ali prekliče posebne regulativne obveznosti, načeloma ni v nasprotju s členom 4 Direktive 2001/21.
However, it is for the national court to ensure that national procedural law guarantees the safeguarding of the rights which users and undertakings in competition with an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market derive from the Community legal order in a manner which is not less favourable than that in which comparable domestic rights are safeguarded and which does not prejudice the effectiveness of the legal protection of those users and undertakings guaranteed in Article 4 of Directive 2002/21.
Vendar mora predložitveno sodišče preveriti, ali nacionalno procesno pravo zagotavlja varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo na podlagi prava Skupnosti uporabniki in konkurenti podjetja, ki je imelo (prej) pomembno tržno moč na upoštevnem trgu, na tak način, da ni manj ugoden kot v primeru primerljivih pravic nacionalnega prava in ne vpliva na učinkovitost pravnega varstva, ki jo tem uporabnikom in konkurentom zagotovlja člen 4 Direktive 2002/21.
Case C-201/06
Zadeva C-201/06
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Francoski republiki
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Plant protection products — Parallel imports — Marketing authorisation procedure — Conditions — Common origin of a plant protection product imported in parallel and the reference product)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Fitofarmacevtska sredstva – Vzporedni uvozi – Postopek izdaje dovoljenja za dajanje v promet – Pogoji – Skupno poreklo vzporedno uvoženega fitofarmacevtskega sredstva in referenčnega sredstva“
Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak delivered on 11 September 2007 . .
Trstenjak, predstavljeni 11. septembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 21 February 2008 . . . . . . .
I - 737Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 21. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 752
Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect(Art. 28 EC; Council Directive 91/414)
Prosti pretok blaga – Količinske omejitve – Ukrepi z enakim učinkom(člen 28 ES; Direktiva Sveta 91/414)
SUMMARY — CASE C-201/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-201/06
A Member State which restricts the simplified authorisation procedure for the parallel importation of plant protection products only to cases where the imported product and the reference product have a common origin, in the sense that they have been manufactured according to the same formulation by the same company or by an associated undertaking or under licence does not fail to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.
Država članica je s tem, da omeji pravico do poenostavljenega postopka pridobitve dovoljenja za vzporedni uvoz le na primere, ko imata uvoženo in referenčno sredstvo skupno poreklo v smislu, da ju je po isti formuli proizvedla ista družba ali povezana podjetja ali podjetja, ki poslujejo na podlagi licence, izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 28 ES.
whether it may have the benefit of the marketing authorisation issued in favour of a plant protection product already on the market of that State.
uvožen in ali je mogoče zanj pridobiti dovoljenje za dajanje v promet, izdano za na trgu te države članice obstoječe fitofarmacevtsko sredstvo.
To that end, the notion of common origin allows parallel imports to be distinguished from other situations in which the importer of a product authorised in another Member State seeks to benefit from a marketing authorisation already granted in the Member State of importation.
Pojem skupnega porekla zato omogoča razlikovanje vzporednih uvozov in drugih primerov, v katerih uvoznik sredstva, ki je v drugi državi članici že registrirano, vlaga zahtevek za pridobitev dovoljenja za dajanje v promet, ki je bilo v državi članici uvoznici že izdano.
Furthermore, a common origin constitutes an important indication that the products at issue are identical, which would show that the marketing authorisation for the reference product may be used for the imported product.
Skupno poreklo je poleg tega pomemben pokazatelj enakosti zadevnih sredstev, saj dokazuje, da je mogoče dovoljenje za dajanje v promet referenčnega sredstva uporabiti v korist uvoženega sredstva.
A plant protection product introduced into the territory of a Member State as a parallel import cannot, automatically or absolutely and unconditionally, have the benefit of a marketing authorisation issued to a plant protection product already on the market of that State.
Dovoljenje za dajanje v promet fitofarmacevtskega sredstva, izdano za na trgu te države članice obstoječe fitofarmacevtsko sredstvo, ne more niti samodejno niti absolutno oziroma brezpogojno veljati za fitofarmacevtsko sredstvo, ki je bilo v državo članico uvoženo z vzporednim uvozom.
Therefore, it is for the competent authorities of the Member State of importation to ascertain whether the product has indeed been imported in parallel and
Pristojni organi države članice uvoznice torej preverijo, ali je bil navedeni proizvod vzporedno
(see paras 30, 36-38, 43, 45)
(Glej točke 30, od 36 do 38, 43 in 45.)
TRSTENJAKdelivered on 11 September 2007
1 predstavljeni 11. septembra 2007
II — Legal background
II – Pravni okvir
Under Article 28 EC, ‘quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States’.
Člen 28 ES določa: „[m]ed državami članicami so prepovedane količinske omejitve pri uvozu in vsi ukrepi z enakim učinkom“.
This action for failure to fulfil obligations relates to the compatibility of the French legislation on the conditions for authorisation of parallel imports of plant protection products with Article 28 EC.
Obravnavana tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti se nana�a na združljivost francoske ureditve o pogojih za registracijo vzporednih uvozov fitofarmacevtskih sredstev s členom 28 ES.
To be more exact, the Commission seeks a declaration that the French Republic, by requiring that a plant protection product which is a parallel import and the reference product have a common origin, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.
Podrobneje, Komisija Evropskih skupnosti predlaga ugotovitev, da Francoska republika, s tem da zahteva skupni izvor vzporedno uvoženega fitosanitarnega sredstva in referenčnega sredstva, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 28 ES.
Under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning
Člen 3(1) Direktive Sveta 91/414/EGS z dne 15. julija 1991 o dajanju fitofarmacevtskih
shall prescribe that plant protection products may not be placed on the market and used in their territory unless they have authorised the product …’.
sredstev v promet 2(v nadaljevanju: Direktiva) določa, da „[d]ržave članice predpi�ejo, da se fitofarmacevtskih sredstev ne sme dati v promet in jih uporabljati na njihovem ozemlju, če sredstvo ni bilo registrirano […]“.
Article 5 of the directive provides that ‘in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, an active substance shall be included in Annex I for an initial period not exceeding 10 years …’.
Člen 5 Direktive določa, da „[o]b upo�tevanju trenutnega znanstvenega in tehničnega znanja se aktivno snov uvrsti v Prilogo I za začetno obdobje največ 10 let […]“.
Under Article L-253-1 of the Code rural (French Rural Code), ‘the placing on the market, use and possession by the end user of plant protection products are prohibited if those products lack marketing authorisation … ’.
Na podlagi člena L 253-1 Code rural (zakonik o kmetijstvu) „končni uporabnik ne sme dajati v promet, uporabljati in posedovati fitofarmacevtskih sredstev, če zanje ni bilo izdano dovoljenje za dajanje v promet […]“.
The first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 91/414 provides, in particular, that ‘application for authorisation of a plant protection product shall be made by or on behalf of the person responsible for first placing it on the market in a Member State to the competent authorities of each Member State where the plant protection product is intended to be placed on the market.’
Člen 9(1), prvi pododstavek, Direktive med drugim določa, da „[z]ahtevek za registracijo farmacevtskega sredstva predloži pristojnemu organu vsake države članice, kjer se namerava fitofarmacevtsko sredstvo dati v promet, odgovorna oseba za prvo dajanje v promet v državi članici, ali pa se predloži v imenu te odgovorne osebe“.
The first authorisation requires a complete assessment of the properties of the product.
Za prvo registracijo je potrebna celostna presoja lastnosti sredstva.
However, the directive contains no provision governing the conditions for the grant of
Pogoji za izdajo dovoljenja za dajanje fitofarmacevtskih sredstev v promet v Franciji so določeni v dekretu �t.
The conditions for the issue of marketing authorisations for plant protection products in France are set out in Decree No 94-359 of 5 May 1994, 3 which was adopted in order to transpose the directive.
Vendar v Direktivi ni nobene določbe o pogojih za pridobitev dovoljenj za dajanje v
4 manufactured according to the same formulation by the same company or by an associated undertaking or under licence;
skupni izvor obeh sredstev v smislu, da ju je po isti formuli proizvedla ista družba ali povezana podjetja ali podjetja, ki poslujejo na podlagi licence;
Article 1 of Decree No 2001-317 provides:
Člen 1 dekreta �t. 2001-317 določa:
— manufacture using the same active substance or substances;
– proizvodnja sredstva z uporabo iste ali istih aktivnih snovi;
The reference product must have a marketing authorisation issued by the minister responsible for agriculture … .
„[U]voz fitofarmacevtskega sredstva s poreklom iz države Evropskega gospodarskega prostora, v kateri je bilo dovoljenje za dajanje v promet za sredstvo v skladu z zgoraj navedeno Direktivo 91/414/EGS že izdano, ki je enako sredstvu, v nadaljevanju imenovanemu ‚referenčno sredstvo‘, na nacionalno ozemlje je dovoljen pod temi pogoji: