natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
55 Moreover, as the Parliament and the Commission point out, the contested directive draws a clear distinction, as regards self-employed drivers, between on the one hand activities directly linked to road transport, such as those listed in Article 3(a)(1) of the directive, which are the subject of the measures of organisation of working time introduced by the directive, and on the other hand `general administrative work that is not directly linked to the specific transport operation under way', referred to in Article 3(a)(2), which is not concerned by the directive.
55 Štoviše, kao što ističu Parlament i Komisija, pobijana direktiva u pogledu samozaposlenih vozača pravi jasnu razliku između, s jedne strane, aktivnosti izravno povezanih s cestovnim prijevozom koje su navedene u članku 3. stavku (a) točki 1. te direktive i koje su predmet mjera organizacije radnog vremena uvedenih tom direktivom te, s druge strane, „općih administrativnih poslova koji nisu izravno vezani uz određenu vožnju koja je u tijeku", spomenutih u točki 2. iste odredbe, a na koje se direktiva ne odnosi.
56 In view of the wide discretion it enjoys in adopting appropriate measures for a common transport policy (see SAM Schiffahrt and Stapf, paragraphs 23 to 25), the Community legislature was able to consider that measures intended to lay down rules governing the time spent on activities directly linked to road transport, without encroaching on the freedom of a driver who has chosen to be self-employed to organise the general work inherent in that status as he wishes, constitute measures which are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the objective of road safety.
56 S obzirom na široko diskrecijsko pravo koje uživa pri donošenju odgovarajućih mjera za zajedničku prometnu politiku (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu SAM Schiffahrt i Stapf, t. 23. do 25.), zakonodavac Zajednice mogao je smatrati da mjere s ciljem utvrđivanja vremena namijenjenog za obavljanje aktivnosti izravno povezanih s cestovnim prijevozom, ne ometajući time slobodu samozaposlenog vozača da po svojoj volji organizira opće poslove svojstvene tom statusu, predstavljaju mjere koje su odgovarajuće i razumne u odnosu na cilj sigurnosti na cestama.
57 As to the principle of proportionality, it is settled case-law that that principle, which is one of the general principles of Community law, requires that the measures concerned should not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objectives pursued by the legislation in question, and that where there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous (see inter alia Case C-101/98 UDL [1999] ECR I-8841, paragraph 30, and Joined Cases C-27/00 and C-122/00 Omega Air and Others [2002] ECR I-2569, paragraph 62).
57 U odnosu na načelo proporcionalnosti valja napomenuti da na temelju ustaljene sudske prakse to načelo, koje je jedno od općih načela prava Zajednice, zahtijeva da predmetne mjere ne prekoračuju granice onoga što je prikladno i nužno za ostvarenje zadanih legitimnih ciljeva predmetnog propisa, pri čemu, kad je moguće odabrati između više prikladnih mjera, valja primijeniti onu koja je najmanje ograničavajuća (vidjeti osobito presude od 16. prosinca 1999., UDL, C-101/98, Zb., str. I-8841., t. 30., i od 12. ožujka 2002., Omega Air i drugi, C-27/00 i C-122/00, Zb., str. I-2569, t. 62.).
58 In the present case, the considerations set out in paragraphs 54 to 56 above lead to the conclusion that the provisions of the contested directive relating to self-employed drivers, which aim to ensure that they do not adopt, as regards activities directly linked to road transport, a pattern of working liable to jeopardise road safety, without interfering with their freedom to organise their general administrative work as they think most in accordance with their interests, do not infringe the principle of proportionality.
58 U ovom predmetu razmatranja prethodno navedena u točkama 54. do 56. dovode do zaključka da odredbe pobijane direktive koje se odnose na samozaposlene vozače, čiji je cilj osigurati da oni u odnosu na aktivnosti izravno povezane s cestovnim prijevozom ne usvoje takav radni obrazac kojim bi ugrozili sigurnost na cestama, ne zadirući u njihovu slobodu da organiziraju svoje opće administrativne poslove na način koji smatraju najprikladnijim svojim interesima, ne krše načelo proporcionalnosti.
59 It should be added that, contrary to the submissions of the Republic of Finland, stricter enforcement of the restrictions on driving time laid down by Regulation No 3820/85 cannot be regarded as an equally effective and less restrictive solution that the provisions at issue.
59 Valja dodati da se, protivno očitovanjima Republike Finske, stroža provedba ograničenja radnog vremena utvrđena Uredbom br. 3820/85 ne može smatrati jednako učinkovitim i manje ograničavajućim rješenjem od predmetnih odredaba.
This would be of no assistance in confining within reasonable limits the duration of working time devoted by a self-employed driver to activities other than driving that are directly linked to road transport and are liable to have a bearing on his state of tiredness and his driving, to the detriment of road safety.
To ne bi pomoglo da se razumno ograniči trajanje radnog vremena koje samozaposleni vozač posvećuje aktivnostima koje nisu vožnja, a izravno su povezane s cestovnim prijevozom i na njegov umor i vožnju mogu utjecati na štetu sigurnosti na cestama.
60 In the light of the foregoing, the regulation of the working time of self-employed drivers envisaged in the contested directive cannot be regarded as a disproportionate and intolerable interference impairing the very substance of the freedom to pursue an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business, or as a breach of the principle of proportionality.
60 Vodeći računa o navedenom, uređenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača predviđeno u pobijanoj direktivi ne može se smatrati nerazmjernim i neprihvatljivim zahvatom kojim se povređuje sama bit slobode obavljanja zanimanja i slobode poduzetništva, kao ni povredom načela proporcionalnosti.
61 It follows that these pleas must be rejected in their entirety.
61 Iz toga slijedi da ove tužbene razloge valja odbiti u cijelosti.
Plea of breaches of the principle of non-discrimination and of Article 74 EC
Tužbeni razlog vezan uz povredu načela nediskriminacije i članka 74. UEZ-a
62 The Kingdom of Spain submits that, as a result of their inclusion in the scope of the contested directive, self-employed carriers suffer unjustified discrimination in comparison with employed workers, since situations which are entirely different are treated in the same way although there is no objective justification for this.
62 Kraljevina Španjolska ističe da samozaposleni prijevoznici, zbog toga što su uključeni u područje primjene pobijane direktive, trpe neopravdanu diskriminaciju u usporedbi sa zaposlenim radnicima, s obzirom na to da se potpuno različite situacije tretiraju na jednaki način iako za to ne postoji objektivno opravdanje.
It also submits that that inclusion infringes the provisions of Article 74 EC.
Ona također smatra da se tim uključivanjem krše odredbe članka 74. UEZ-a.
63 The Kingdom of Spain adds that road safety and the ensuring of free competition do not constitute objective reasons capable of justifying self-employed drivers being treated in the same way as employed workers.
63 Kraljevina Španjolska dodaje da sigurnost na cestama i osiguravanje slobodnog tržišnog natjecanja ne predstavljaju objektivne razloge koji bi mogli opravdati da se samozaposleni vozači tretiraju na jednaki način kao zaposleni radnici.
In its view, first, road safety is not the objective of the contested directive and, second, the exclusion of self-employed drivers from the scope of that directive is not liable to distort competition in the transport market, in view in particular of the limits on driving time laid down by Regulation No 3820/85.
Ona smatra da, s jedne strane, sigurnost na cestama nije cilj pobijane direktive i, s druge strane, da isključivanje samozaposlenih vozača iz područja primjene te direktive ne može narušiti tržišno natjecanje na tržištu prijevoza, posebice s obzirom na ograničenja vremena vožnje utvrđena Uredbom br. 3820/85.
64 It is settled case-law that the principle of non-discrimination requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified (see inter alia Omega Air and Others, paragraph 79, and Case C-137/00 Milk Marque and National Farmers' Union [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 126).
64 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, načelo nediskriminacije zahtijeva da se u usporedivim situacijama ne postupa na različit način i da se u različitim situacijama ne postupa na jednak način, osim ako je takvo postupanje objektivno opravdano (vidjeti osobito prethodno navedenu presudu Omega Air i dr., t. 79. i presudu od 9. rujna 2003., Milk Marque i National Farmers' Union, C-137/00, Zb., str. I-7975., t. 126.).
65 In the present case, it must be noted that, with respect to the organisation of their working time, to which the contested directive relates, self-employed and employed drivers are not in the same situation.
65 U ovom predmetu valja primijetiti da što se tiče organizacije radnog vremena na koju se odnosi pobijana direktiva, samozaposleni i zaposleni vozači nisu u istoj situaciji.
The former must, in addition to activities directly linked to road transport, take on general administrative work which does not concern the latter.
Prvi, uz aktivnosti izravno povezane s cestovnim prijevozom, moraju preuzeti i opći administrativni posao koji se potonjih ne tiče.
66 A reading of the provisions of Article 3(a) of the contested directive which concern the definition of working time in the cases of employed mobile workers and self-employed drivers respectively shows that the Community legislature took account of that difference of situation.
66 Iz odredaba članka 3. stavka (a) pobijane direktive, koje se odnose na definiciju radnog vremena u slučaju zaposlenih mobilnih radnika za razliku od slučaja samozaposlenih vozača, jasno je da je zakonodavac Zajednice vodio računa o toj razlici.
With respect to employed workers, the directive regulates the whole of their working time, namely the time devoted to road transport activities as listed in the first indent of Article 3(a)(1) and also `the times during which [the mobile worker] cannot freely dispose of his time and is required to be at his workstation, ready to take up normal work, with certain tasks associated with being on duty ...' (second indent of Article 3(a)(1)).
U odnosu na zaposlene radnike, direktiva uređuje čitavo njihovo radno vrijeme, tj. vrijeme posvećeno djelatnostima cestovnog prijevoza navedenima u prvoj alineji članka 3. stavka (a) točke 1., kao i „vrijeme tijekom kojeg radnik ne može slobodno raspolagati svojim vremenom te mora biti na svojem radnom mjestu, spreman poduzeti svoje uobičajene poslove, pri čemu su neki poslovi povezani uz s dežurstvima [...]" (članak 3. stavak (a) točka 1. druga alineja).
With respect to self-employed drivers, it confines itself to regulating the part of their activities which they have in common with employed workers, namely the road transport activities mentioned above, while excluding from its scope the activities, peculiar to the status of self-employed worker, corresponding to the `general administrative work that is not directly linked to the specific transport operation underway' (Article 3(a)(2)).
U odnosu na samozaposlene vozače, ona se ograničava na uređenje dijela njihovih aktivnosti koje su njima i zaposlenim radnicima zajedničke, a to su prethodno navedene aktivnosti cestovnog prijevoza, dok iz svojeg područja primjene isključuje aktivnosti svojstvene statusu samozaposlenog radnika koje odgovaraju „općim administrativnim poslovima koji nisu izravno vezani uz određenu vožnju koja je u tijeku" (članak 3.(a) točka 2.).
67 Moreover, it must be emphasised that activities linked to road transport mean the same thing for employed and self-employed drivers, and in both cases cover not only driving but also a number of other activities directly linked to road transport, such as loading and unloading, assisting passengers boarding and disembarking from the vehicle, cleaning and technical maintenance, and all work intended to ensure the safety of the vehicle, its cargo and passengers and to fulfil legal or regulatory obligations (administrative and customs formalities etc.).
67 Štoviše, valja naglasiti da djelatnosti povezane s cestovnim prijevozom zaposlenim i samozaposlenim vozačima znače isto, te u oba slučaja obuhvaćaju ne samo vožnju nego i niz drugih djelatnosti izravno povezanih s cestovnim prijevozom, kao što su utovar i istovar, pomoć putnicima kod ulaska i izlaska iz vozila, čišćenje i tehničko održavanje, te svi ostali poslovi čija je svrha osiguravanje sigurnosti vozila, njegova tereta i putnika ili ispunjavanje pravnih i regulatornih obveza (administrativne i carinske formalnosti itd.).
Consequently, the argument of the Kingdom of Spain that the contested directive obliges only self-employed drivers to count activities other than driving towards their working time, and thus places employed workers in a more favourable position than self-employed drivers as regards attribution of the permitted length of working time to the driving time allowed by Regulation No 3820/85, is unfounded.
Stoga je neutemeljen argument Kraljevine Španjolske da pobijana direktiva obvezuje isključivo samozaposlene vozače da u svoje radno vrijeme ubroje aktivnosti koje nisu vožnja, te da na taj način zaposlene radnike dovodi u povoljniji položaj od samozaposlenih vozača s obzirom na pripisivanje dozvoljene duljine radnog vremena vremenu vožnje koje dopušta Uredba br. 3820/85.
68 Finally, while accepting that the contested directive must be regarded as a measure taken `in respect of transport rates and conditions' within the meaning of Article 74 EC, the analysis in paragraphs 54 to 56 above and the conditions under which it is envisaged, in Article 2(1) of that directive, that self-employed drivers are to be included within its scope mean that the Community legislature did not fail to fulfil its obligation to take into account the economic circumstances of carriers, in this case self-employed ones.
68 Naposljetku, dopuštajući da se pobijana direktiva mora smatrati mjerom poduzetom „u odnosu na prijevozne naknade i uvjete" u smislu članka 74. UEZ-a, prema analizi u točkama 54. do 56. ove presude i uvjetima prema kojima je u članku 2. stavku 1. te direktive predviđeno da samozaposleni vozači moraju biti uključeni u područje njezine primjene isključeno je da je zakonodavac Zajednice propustio ispuniti svoju obvezu da uzme u obzir gospodarski položaj prijevoznikâ, u ovom slučaju onih koji su samozaposleni.
Plea of breach of Articles 137(2) EC and 157 EC
Tužbeni razlog vezan uz povredu članka 137. stavka 2. UEZ-a i članka 157. UEZ-a
69 The Republic of Finland states that the limits on working time in the contested directive burden mainly small and medium-sized undertakings, which, unlike large undertakings, do not have the human resources needed to carry out a division of tasks which would allow drivers to make use of the entire driving time permitted by that directive while other employees took on, free of any limitations on working time under that directive, the activities other than driving vehicles.
69 Republika Finska navodi da ograničenja radnog vremena u pobijanoj direktivi opterećuju uglavnom mala i srednja poduzeća koja, za razliku od velikih poduzeća, nemaju potrebne ljudske resurse za provedbu podjele rada kojom bi vozačima omogućila iskorištenje cjelokupnog vremena vožnje koje dozvoljava ta direktiva, dok bi ostali zaposlenici, neopterećeni ograničenjima radnog vremena koja proizlaze iz te direktive, obavljali aktivnosti koje nisu vožnja vozila.
It therefore concludes that there has been a breach of Article 137(2) EC.
Ona stoga zaključuje da je došlo do povrede članka 137. stavka 2. UEZ-a.
70 It further submits that the limitation of the working time of self-employed drivers inhibits the development of small undertakings, since to the risks inherent in any business it adds unjustified restrictions of the freedom to devote the time desired to the management of the business, which runs counter to the objective of the competitiveness of European industry stated in Article 157 EC.
70 Ona nadalje ističe da ograničenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača koči razvoj malih poduzeća, jer rizicima svojstvenima svakom poslu dodaje neopravdana ograničenja slobode posvećivanja željenog vremena upravljanju poslovanjem, što je u suprotnosti s ciljem konkurentnosti europske industrije utvrđenim u članku 157. UEZ-a.
It asserts that application of the contested directive to self-employed drivers is likely to have the effect of strengthening the position of large transport undertakings, weakening competition and reducing the possibilities of employment in small and medium-sized undertakings.
Ona potvrđuje da primjena pobijane direktive na samozaposlene vozače može proizvesti učinak jačanja položaja velikih prijevoznika, slabeći tržišno natjecanje i smanjujući mogućnosti zapošljavanja u malim i srednjim poduzećima.
71 It should be observed, as regards Article 137(2) EC, that the Republic of Finland refers in particular to the provision in the second sentence of indent (b) of the first subparagraph, under which directives based on Article 137(2) and aimed at the protection of workers' health and safety within the meaning of Article 137(1)(a) must avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings.
71 Valja primijetiti da se u odnosu na članak 137. stavak 2. UEZ-a Republika Finska poziva posebice na odredbu u drugoj rečenici prve alineje točke (b), prema kojoj direktive koje se temelje na članku 137. stavku 2. i za cilj imaju zaštitu zdravlja i sigurnosti radnika u smislu članka 137. stavka 1. točke (a), neće sadržavati upravna, financijska ili pravna ograničenja kojima bi se otežavalo osnivanje i razvoj malih i srednjih poduzeća.
72 While acknowledging that the provisions of the contested directive relating to self-employed drivers, the only ones challenged in the present case, are based on Article 137(2) EC as well as on Article 71 EC, it must be pointed out that the provision of the EC Treaty referred to in the preceding paragraph indeed means that the particular economic interests of small and medium-sized undertakings are to be taken into account when measures falling under Article 137(1)(a) EC are adopted, but does not preclude those undertakings from being the subject of binding measures (see, with respect to the second subparagraph of Article 118(2) of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR I-5755, paragraph 44).
72 Dopuštajući da se odredbe pobijane direktive o samozaposlenim vozačima, jedine koje se osporavaju u ovom predmetu, temelje ne samo na članku 137. stavku 2. UEZ-a nego i na članku 71. UEZ-a, valja istaknuti da odredba Ugovora o EZ-u iz prethodne točke doista znači da posebne ekonomske interese malih i srednjih poduzeća treba uzeti u obzir pri donošenju mjera obuhvaćenih člankom 137. stavkom 1. točkom (a) UEZ-a, no ne sprečava da se ta poduzeća podvrgnu ograničavajućim mjerama (vidjeti, u odnosu na drugi podstavak članka 118. stavka 2. Ugovora o EZ-u (članci 117. do 120. Ugovora o EZ-u zamijenjeni su člancima 136. UEZ-a do 143. UEZ-a), presudu od 12. studenoga 1996., Ujedinjena Kraljevina/Vijeće, C-84/94, Zb., str. I-5755, t. 44.).
73 The regulation of the working time of self-employed drivers envisaged by the contested directive expresses, as explained in paragraphs 53 to 56 above, a balanced consideration of the objective of road safety on the one hand and the particular features of the status of self-employed worker linked to the general administrative work of his business on the other.
73 Uređenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača predviđeno pobijanom direktivom izraz je, kao što je pojašnjeno u točkama 53. do 56. ove presude, uravnoteženog razmatranja cilja sigurnosti na cestama s jedne strane i posebnih obilježja statusa samozaposlenog radnika u vezi s općim administrativni poslom, s druge strane.
In those circumstances, it cannot be regarded as imposing constraints such as to hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings.
U tim se okolnostima ne može smatrati da ono stvara ograničenja kojima bi se otežavalo osnivanje i razvoj malih i srednjih poduzeća.
74 Article 157 EC for its part provides that, to ensure that the conditions necessary for the competitiveness of the Community's industry exist, action taken by the Community as part of its industrial policy or under other provisions of the Treaty must inter alia encourage an environment favourable to initiative and to the development of undertakings throughout the Community, particularly small and medium-sized undertakings.
74 Ono što, pak, predviđa članak 157. UEZ-a jest da radi osiguranja uvjeta potrebnih za konkurentnost industrije Zajednice, akcije koje Zajednica poduzima kao dio svoje industrijske politike ili u okviru odredaba Ugovora moraju, između ostalog, poticati okruženje pogodno za inicijativu i razvoj poduzetnika diljem Zajednice, a posebno malih i srednjih poduzetnika.
75 In the present case, however, in addition to what has been stated in paragraph 73 above, it is clear that the Republic of Finland's argument that there has been an infringement of Article 157 EC is based in part on the premiss, which is incorrect in view of the exclusion of general administrative work from the definition of the working time of self-employed drivers, that the contested directive aims to regulate the time devoted by those drivers to the general management of the business, and in part on pure conjecture as to the supposed impact that directive may be expected to have on the respective positions of large undertakings and small and medium-sized ones.
75 Međutim, u ovom je predmetu, osim navedenog u točki 73., razvidno da se argument Republike Finske o povredi članka 157. UEZ-a dijelom temelji na pretpostavci koja je netočna s obzirom na isključenje općeg administrativnog posla iz definicije radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača, da pobijana direktiva za cilj ima urediti vrijeme koje ti vozači posvećuju općem vođenju poslovanja, a dijelom na pukom nagađanju o pretpostavljenom učinku koji bi ta direktiva mogla imati na položaj velikih odnosno malih i srednjih poduzeća.
76 This plea must accordingly be rejected.
76 Ovaj tužbeni razlog stoga valja odbiti.
Pleas of failure to state reasons
Tužbeni razlozi povezani s propuštanjem navođenja razloga
77 The Kingdom of Spain submits that the inclusion of self-employed drivers in the scope of the contested directive is not based on any proper justification.
77 Kraljevina Španjolska smatra da se uključivanje samozaposlenih vozača u područje primjene pobijane direktive ne temelji na odgovarajućem opravdanju.
It complains of the lack of logic and precision in the eighth recital in the preamble to the directive and points to the absence of solid reasoning on the part of the legislature.
Ona se žali na nedostatak logike i preciznosti u osmoj uvodnoj izjavi direktive te naglašava da obrazloženje zakonodavca nije čvrsto.
It adds that, in view of the exceptional nature of the introduction of limits on the time devoted by a self-employed operator to the pursuit of his activities, such a measure requires a more detailed statement of reasons than the brief summary in that recital.
Dodaje da, s obzirom na iznimnu prirodu uvođenja ograničenja vremena koje samozaposleni subjekt posvećuje obavljanju svojih aktivnosti, takva mjera umjesto kratkog sažetka u toj uvodnoj izjavi iziskuje detaljnije obrazloženje.