natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the financial burdens on animal keepers resulting from those obligations, the Court points out several factors that must be taken into account, in particular (i) that those burdens may be less than the costs of non-selective measures, such as the ban on exports or the preventive slaughter of livestock in the event of the occurrence of a disease, (ii) that the new system makes provision for several exceptions, (iii) that the electronic identification obligation was only introduced gradually and (iv) that it is possible for animal keepers to obtain financial support to contribute partly to the additional costs connected to the introduction of the system.
Što se tiče financijskog opterećenja za uzgajivače koje je posljedica tih mjera, Sud ističe više čimbenika koje valja uzeti u obzir: (i) to opterećenje može biti manje od troškova neselektivnih mjera kao što su zabrana izvoza ili preventivno klanje stoke u slučaju pojave bolesti, (ii) novi sustav predviđa nekoliko iznimaka, (iii) obveza elektronskog označivanja uvedena je postupno, (iv) uzgajivači imaju mogućnost dobiti financijsku potporu u svrhu naknade jednog dijela dodatnih troškova povezanih s uvođenjem tog sustava.
As regards animal welfare, the Court observes that the fact that two means of identification must be affixed to the animals instead of one and the fact that the new means of identification statistically cause more injuries and complications than traditional devices, are not such as to demonstrate that the assessment of the EU legislature concerning the benefits of introducing the obligation of electronic identification was wrong.
U vezi s dobrobiti životinja , Sud smatra da činjenica da se na životinje umjesto jednog moraju staviti dva sredstva za označivanje, kao i okolnost da nova sredstva za označivanje statistički izazivaju više ozljeda i teškoća od tradicionalnih znakova, nisu takve naravi da bi dokazali da je procjena zakonodavca Unije u pogledu prednosti uvođenja obveze elektronskog označivanja bila pogrešna.
In addition, it points out that, by facilitating the control of epizootic diseases and thereby enabling the suffering of infected animals to be avoided, the new system contributes positively to the protection of animal welfare.
Štoviše, on ističe da novi sustav, time što olakšava borbu protiv epizootskih bolesti i što na taj način sprječava s njima povezane patnje zaraženih životinja, na pozitivan način pridonosi zaštiti dobrobiti životinja.
The new system also complies with the principle of equal treatment .
Novi sustav također poštuje načelo jednakosti postupanja .
In that respect , the derogation which permits Member States with a small sheep or goat population 3 to make the electronic identification system optional does not discriminate against animal keepers established in a Member State where that identification is obligatory.
Shodno tome, odstupanje koje ovlašćuje države članice s relativno malim brojem ovaca i koza 3 da učine neobveznim sustav elektronskog označivanja nije diskriminirajuće u odnosu na uzgajivače s poslovnim nastanom u državi članici u kojoj je takvo označivanje obvezno.
In that regard, the Court notes, in particular, that the thresholds provided for are reasonable and proportionate to the objectives pursued by the new system and that that derogation only applies to animals which are not involved in intra-Community trade.
U tom smislu, Sud osobito ističe da su propisani pragovi razumni i razmjerni ciljevima kojima se novim sustavom teži i da se to odstupanje primjenjuje samo na životinje koje nisu uključene u promet unutar Zajednice.
Finally, that system does not discriminate against keepers of sheep and goats as opposed to keepers of cattle and pigs , who are not subject to the same obligations.
Naposljetku, taj sustav također ne diskriminira uzgajivače ovaca i koza u odnosu na uzgajivače govedâ i svinja, koji nisu podvrgnuti istim obveza ma.
Despite some similarities of those various types of mammals, there are differences that justify a specific regulatory framework for each animal species.
Naime, usprkos određenim sličnostima između ovih dviju različitih vrsta sisavaca postoje različitosti koje opravdavaju zasebni regulatorni okvir za svaku životinjsku vrstu.
Given the historical context of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis in 2001, the EU legislature could legitimately introduce specific legislation providing for the electronic identification of sheep and goats that were particularly affected by that crisis.
Uzimajući u obzir povijesni kontekst krize prilikom izbijanja bolesti slinavke i šapa u 2001., zakonodavac Unije mogao je legitimno donijeti specifično zakonodavstvo koje predviđa elektronsko označivanje ovaca i koza koje su bile posebno pogođene tom krizom.
However, the Court notes that, although the legislature could lawfully make use of such a step-by-step approach for the introduction of electronic identification, it must, in view of the objectives of the contested legislation, consider the need to review the measures adopted, inter alia as regards whether electronic identification is optional or obligatory.
Međutim, Sud ističe da iako je zakonodavac mogao legitimno zauzeti pristup postupnog uvođenja elektronskog označivanja, on mora, s obzirom na ciljeve spornog propisa, razmotriti postoji li potreba za preispitivanjem uspostavljenih mjera, osobito u dijelu koji se odnosi na obveznu ili fakultativnu narav elektronskog označivanja.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
NAPOMENA : Prethodno pitanje omogućuje sudovima država članica da se, u okviru sporova u kojima odlučuju, obrate Sudu u vezi s tumačenjem prava Unije ili valjanosti akta Unije.
Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of animals (OJ 1992 L 355, p.
Direktiva Vijeća 92/102/EEZ od 27. studenoga 1992. o identifikaciji i registraciji životinja (SL L 355, str.
32).
32.).
( OJ 2004 L 5, p.
1782/2003 i direktiva 92/102/EEZ i 64/432/EEZ (SL L 5, str.
5).
253.).
A maximum of 600 000 animals, in total, for sheep and goats, and 160 000 in respect of goats only.
Najviše 600 000 ovaca i koza ukupno i 160 000 koza.
PRESS RELEASE No 135/13
PRIOPĆENJE ZA MEDIJE br.
Luxembourg, 17 October 2013
Luxembourg , 17. listopada 2013.
Judgment in Case C‑291/12
Presuda u predmetu C-291/12
Michael Schwarz v Stadt Bochum
Michael Schwarz / Stadt Bochum
Including fingerprints in passports is lawful
Pohranjivanje otisaka prstiju u putovnicama je dopušteno
Those fingerprints may be used only for verifying the authenticity of a passport and the identity of its holder.
Ovi otisci mogu se koristiti samo u svrhu provjere autentičnosti putovnice i identiteta imatelja.
Mr Schwarz applied to the Stadt Bochum (city of Bochum, Germany) for a passport, but refused at that time to have his fingerprints taken.
M. Schwarz je od Grada Bochuma (Njemačka) zatražio izdavanje putovnice odbijajući pritom da mu se uzmu otisci prstiju.
After the city rejected his application, Mr Schwarz brought an action before the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen (Administrative Court, Gelsenkirchen, Germany) in which he requested that the city be ordered to issue him with a passport without taking his fingerprints.
Nakon što je Grad odbio njegov zahtjev, M. Schwarz je podnio tužbu na Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen (Upravni sud Gelsenkirchen, Njemačka) zahtijevajući da se Gradu naloži izdavanje putovnice bez uzimanja otisaka prstiju.
In that context, the Administrative Court seeks to establish whether the regulation is valid, particularly in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as it obliges any person applying for a passport to provide fingerprints and provides for those fingerprints to be stored in that passport.
S tim u svezi, upravni sud želi saznati je li Uredba valjana u dijelu u kojem se od podnositelja zahtjeva za putovnicu traži davanje otisaka prstiju te propisuje da ih se mora pohraniti u putovnicu, osobito s obzirom na Povelju o temeljnim pravima Europske unije.
By today’s judgment, the Court of Justice answers that question in the affirmative.
Današnjom presudom Sud potvrdno odgovara na navedeno pitanje.
Although the taking and storing of fingerprints in passports constitutes an infringement of the rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal data, those measures are in any event justified by the aim of protecting against any fraudulent use of passports.
Iako uzimanje i čuvanje otisaka u putovnici predstavlja povredu prava na poštivanje privatnog života i zaštitu podataka osobne naravi, takve mjere su u svakom slučaju opravdane radi zaštite putovnica od bilo kakvog prijevarnog korištenja.
In that regard, the Court finds that the contested measures pursue , in particular, the general interest objective of preventing illegal entry into the EU.
S tim u svezi , Sud zaključuje kako se osporavanim mjerama u općem interesu želi ostvariti cilj − onemogućavanje nezakonitog ulaska osoba u Europsku uniju.
To that end, they are intended to prevent both the falsification of passports and the fraudulent use thereof.
U tu svrhu, navedenim mjerama želi se spriječiti krivotvorenje i prijevarno korištenje putovnica.
First of all, it is not apparent from the evidence available to the Court, nor has it been claimed, that those measures do not respect the essence of the fundamental rights at issue.
Prije svega, iz informacija kojima Sud raspolaže ne proizlazi niti se pritom isticalo da te mjere ne poštuju bitan sadržaj temeljnih prava u pitanju.
Lastly, the contested measures do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the above aim .
Na koncu, osporavane mjere ne idu dalje od onoga što je potrebno za posti zanje navedenog cilja.
The Court has not been made aware of any measure which would be sufficiently effective and less of a threat than the taking of fingerprints .
Naime, kada je riječ o uzimanju otisaka prstiju , Sud nije došao do saznanja da postoji dovoljno učinkovita mjera kojom bi se manje zahvaćalo u prava.
With regard to the processing of fingerprints , the Court notes that fingerprints play a particular role in the field of identifying persons in general.
U svezi s obradom otisaka prstiju , Sud ističe da otisci prstiju općenito zauzimaju posebnu ulogu u području identifikacije osoba.
Thus, comparing fingerprints taken in a particular place with those stored in a database makes it possible to establish whether a certain person is in that particular place, whether in the context of a criminal investigation or in order to monitor that person indirectly.
Tako je usporedbom otisaka prstiju na nekom mjestu s otiscima koji su pohranjeni u bazu podataka moguće utvrditi da je određena osoba nazočna na tom mjestu, bilo u okviru kriminalističke istrage ili radi neizravnog nadzora te osobe.
However, the Court also notes that the regulation explicitly states that fingerprints may be used only for verifying the authenticity of a passport and the identity of its holder.
Međutim, Sud primjećuje da Uredba izričito propisuje da se otisci prstiju mogu koristiti samo u svrhu provjere autentičnosti putovnice i identiteta imatelja.
Moreover, the regulation does not provide for the storage of fingerprints except within the passport itself, which belongs to the holder alone.
Štoviše, Uredba propisuje pohranjivanje otisaka prstiju u samoj putovnici koja ostaje u isključivom posjedu imatelja.
Furthermore, the Court finds that the regulation was adopted on an appropriate legal basis and that the procedure leading to the adoption of the measures applicable in the present case is not vitiated by any defect, since the Parliament was fully involved in that procedure in its role as co-legislator 3 .
Sud pored toga zaključuje da je Uredba donesena na temelju odgovarajuće pravne osnove te, s obzirom na to da je Parlament u potpunosti bio uključen kao sudionik zakonodavnog postupka 3 , u usvajanju mjera koje se primjenjuju u konkretnom slučaju nisu učinjene postupovne pogreške.
N OTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
NAPOMENA : Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku dopušta sudovima država članica u okviru spora koji se pred njima vodi da upute pitanje Sudu vezano uz tumačenje prava Unije ili valjanost akta Unije.
And travel documents.
I putne isprave.
Judgment in Joined Cases C-105/12, C-106/12 and C-107/12
Presuda u spojenim predmetima C-105/12, C-106/12 i C-107/12
Staat der Nederlanden / Essent NV, Essent Nederland BV, Eneco Holding NV, Delta NV
Država Nizozemska / Essent NV, Essent Nederland BV, Eneco Holding NV, Delta NV
R estrictions on the free movement of capital affecting undertakings active in the electricity and natural gas markets may be compatible with EU law
Ograničenja slobodnog kretanja kapitala koja se odnose na poduzeća koja djeluju na tržištima električne energije i prirodnog plina mogu biti u skladu s europskim pravom
In that context , the objectives of maintaining undistorted competition in order to protect consumers and ensuring security of energy supply constitute overriding reasons in the public interest
U ovom smislu , cilj održanja nenarušenog tržišnog natjecanja kako bi se zaštitili potrošači i cilj osiguranja opskrbe energijom predstavljaju važne razloge u općem interesu
Under recent Netherlands legislation, a private investor may not acquire or own shares or interests in the capital of an electricity or gas distribution system operator in the Netherlands (‘the privatisation prohibition’).
Prema nedavnom zakonodavstvu Kraljevine Nizozemske, privatni investitor ne može steći ili biti vlasnik dionica, odnosno imati vlasničke udjele u kapitalu operatora distribucijskog sustava električne energije ili plina na nizozemskom području („zabrana privatizacije“).
Also prohibited are ownership or control links between, on the one hand, companies which are members of the same group as an operator of such distribution systems and, on the other, companies which are members of the same group as an undertaking which generates/produces, supplies or trades in electricity or gas in the Netherlands (‘the group prohibition’).
Nadalje, zabranjena je povezanost između vlasništva i kontrole između, s jedne strane, trgovačkih društava grupe kojoj pripada takav operator, te s druge strane, trgovačkih društava koja su dio grupe kojoj pripada poduzeće koje proizvodi, opskrbljuje ili se bavi trgovinom električne energije ili plina na nizozemskom području („zabrana grupe“).
When that legislation was adopted, Essent, Eneco and Delta were vertically integrated undertakings, active both in the generation/production, supply and/or trade in electricity and/or gas in the Netherlands and in the operation and use of electricity or gas distribution systems in the Netherlands.
U vrijeme donošenja tih odredaba, Essent, Eneco i Delta bili su vertikalno integrirana poduzeća koja su se bavila proizvodnjom, opskrbom i/ili trgovinom električnom energijom i/ili plinom na nizozemskom području, kao i upravljanjem i pogonom distribucijskih sustava električne energije ili plina na tom istom području.
Following the adoption of the national legislation which introduced the privatisation prohibition, the group prohibition and the prohibition of activities which may adversely affect system operation, Essent NV was split, on 1 July 2009, into two separate companies, namely, (i) Enexis Holding NV, whose object as a company is the operation of a gas and electricity distribution system in the Netherlands and all of whose shares are owned by the authorities and (ii) Essent NV, whose object as a company is to generate/produce, supply and market electricity and gas.
Nakon donošenja nac ionalnih odredaba kojima je uvedena zabrana privatizacije, grupe i djelatnosti koje mogu štetiti upravljanju mrežom, trgovačko društvo Essent NV podijeljeno je 1. srpnja 2009. na dva zasebna trgovačka društva, i to s jedne strane na Enexis Holding NV, čiji se predmet poslovanja sastoji od upravljanja distribucijskom mrežom plina i električne energije na nizozemskom području i čije su sve dionice bile u vlasništvu tijela javnih vlasti, i s druge strane na Essent NV, čiji se predmet poslovanja sastoji u proizvodnji, ospkrbi i trgovanju električnom energijom i plinom.
The latter company was purchased by the subsidiary of a German group which specialises in the energy sector, RWE AG.
RWE AG, društvo kći njemačke grupe specijalizirane za energetski sektor, kupilo je posljednje navedeno trgovačko društvo.
Eneco Holding NV and Delta NV were not split, but identified their subsidiaries Stedin Netbeheer BV and Delta Netwerkbedrijf BV as the respective operators of their distribution systems.
Eneco Holding NV i Delta NV nisu podijeljeni, ali su odredili svoja društva kćeri Stedin Netbeheer BV i Delta Netwerkbedrijf BV kao operatore distribucijskih mreža na tom području.
Against that background , Essent, Eneco and Delta brought actions before the national courts, arguing that the national legislation was incompatible with the free movement of capital.
U tom smislu , Essent, Eneco i Delta pokrenuli su postupak pred nacionalnim sudovima, tvrdeći da nacionalne odredbe nisu u skladu sa slobodnim kretanjem kapitala.
The Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), hearing the case on appeal, decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice on that issue.
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Kasacijski sud, Kraljevina Nizozemska), koji je postupak vodio u zadnjem stupnju, odlučio je uputiti Sudu to pitanje.
Nonetheless , Article 345 TFEU does not mean that rules governing the system of property ownership current in the Member States are not subject to the fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty, which rules include inter alia, the prohibition of discrimination, freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital.
UFEU-a nije izuzeti sustav vlasništva koji postoji u državama članicama iz temeljnih pravila UFEU-a, i to osobito iz pravila o nediskriminaciji, slobodi poslovnog nastana i slobodi kretanja kapitala.
Consequently, the Court holds that, having regard to its effects, the privatisation prohibition constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Sud je stoga utvrdio da zabrana privatizacije, u pogledu svojih učinaka, predstavlja prepreku slobodnom kretanju kapitala.
However, the reasons underlying the choice of the rules of property ownership adopted by the national legislation are factors which may be taken into consideration as circumstances capable of justifying restrictions on the free movement of capital.
R azlozi na kojima se temelji izbor sustava vlasništva koji usvoji nacionalno pravo mogu se uzeti u obzir kao elementi kojima bi se mogla opravdati ograničenja slobodnom kretanju kapitala.
It is for the referring court to conduct such an examination.
Sud koji je uputio zahtjev dužan je izvršiti takvo ispitivanje.
As regards the group prohibition and the prohibition of activities which may adversely affect system operation, the Court holds that those also constitute restrictions on the free movement of capital which must be justified.
U odnosu na zabrane grupe i djelatnosti koje mogu štetiti upravljanju mrežom , Sud je utvrdio da one jednako tako predstavljaju prepreke slobodnom kretanju kapitala koje moraju biti opravdane.
In that regard, the Court states that the objectives of combating cross‑subsidisation in the broad sense, including exchange of strategic information, in order to achieve transparency in the electricity and gas markets, and to prevent distortions of competition, mentioned by the referring court, serve to ensure undistorted competition on the markets for the generation/production, supply and trade of electricity and gas.
U tom smislu Sud navodi da su ciljevi borbe protiv unakrsnog financiranja u širem smislu, u što je uključena i razmjena strateških informacija, kako bi se osigurala transparentnost na tržištu električne energije i plina i kako bi se spriječilo narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja, na koje se sud koji je uputio zahtjev poziva u svom pitanju, usmjereni osiguranju nenarušenog tržišnog natjecanja na tržištu proizvodnje, opskrbe i trgovine električnom energijom i plinom.
The objective of combating cross‑subsidisation seeks, further, to guarantee adequate investment in the electricity and gas distribution systems.
Cilj borbe protiv unakrsnog financiranja nastoji, među ostalim, osigurati dostatno ulaganje u sustave distribucije električne energije i plina.
The Court states that the national measures at issue thereby pursue overriding objectives in the public interest.
Prema stajalištu Suda, nacionalne mjere o kojima je riječ slijede važne razloge u općem interesu.
The objective of undistorted competition is also pursued by the FEU Treaty, the ultimate aim being to protect consumers.
Naime, cilj nenarušenog tržišnog natjecanja jednako tako slijedi i UFEU i to kako bi, naposljetku, zaštitio potrošače.
Further, according to the Court’s settled case law, consumer protection constitutes an overriding reason in the public interest.
Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda, zaštita potrošača među ostalim predstavlja važan razlog u općem interesu.
Next , the Court states that the objective of guaranteeing adequate investment in the electricity and gas distribution systems is designed to ensure, inter alia, security of energy supply, an objective which it has also recognised as being an overriding reason in the public interest.
Sud je nadalje istaknuo da cilj osiguranja dostatnog ulaganja u sustave distribucije električne energije i plina osobito teži zaštiti sigurnost opskrbe energijom, a taj cilj je Sud također, priznao kao važan razlog u općem interesu.
Last , the group prohibition and the prohibition of activities which may adversely affect system operation were introduced by Netherlands legislation which itself, inter alia, amended provisions of national law adopted in order to transpose the 2003 Directives.
Naposljetku, zabrane grupe i djelatnosti koje bi mogle štetiti upravljanju mrežom uvedene su nizozemskim zakonom koji je prije svega izmijenio nacionalne odredbe koje su donesene kako bi se prenijelo direktive iz 2003.
Even if those prohibitions were not imposed by those directives, the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursued, by introducing those measures, objectives sought by those directives.
Iako ove zabrane nisu određene predmetnim direktivama, Kraljevina Nizozemska je uvođenjem ovih mjera, slijedila ciljeve direktiva iz 2003.
Consequently, the objectives referred to by the national court may, in principle, as overriding reasons in the public interest, justify the identified restrictions on fundamental freedoms.
Stoga se ciljevima koje navodi sud koji je uputio zahtjev mogu u načelu, kao važnim razlozima u općem interesu, opravdati utvrđene prepreke temeljnim slobodama.
The Court states however that the restrictions at issue must be appropriate to the objectives pursued, and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives, which it is for the referring court to determine.
Sud međutim podsjeća da prepreke o kojima je riječ moraju biti prikladne za ostvarenje željenih ciljeva, i da ne smiju nadilaziti ono što je nužno za ostvarivanje tih ciljeva, a što je dužan provjeriti sud koji je uputio zahtjev.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
NAPOMENA : Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku dopušta sudovima država članica da u okviru spora koji se pred njima vodi upute pitanje Sudu vezano uz tumačenje prava Unije ili valjanost akta Unije.
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
Sud ne rješava spor pred nacionalnim sudom.