natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
72 Nor can Regulation No 261/2004 be required to contain a specific statement of reasons for each of the technical choices made. Since the objective of protecting passengers required acceptance of standardised and effective compensatory measures which could not give rise to discussion at the very moment when they were to be applied, a situation which, quite evidently, the extraordinary circumstances defence would not have failed to bring about, the Community legislature was able, without breaching its obligation to state reasons, to refrain from setting out the reasons why it considered that operating air carriers could not rely on such a defence in order to be exempted from their obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 of the regulation. Likewise, contrary to ELFAA’s submissions, the Community legislature was able, without rendering the act in question unlawful, to lay down in Article 7 the principle that fixed compensation was payable in the event of cancellation of a flight and the amount of the compensation without setting out the reasons why it had chosen that measure and that amount.
72 A ne bi se moglo zahtijevati ni da Uredba br. 261/2004 sadržava posebno obrazloženje za svako odabrano tehničko rješenje. Budući da je cilj zaštite putnika zahtijevao prihvaćanje standardiziranih i učinkovitih mjera popravljanja štete koje u trenutku kada ih treba provesti ne smiju biti predmetom rasprave koju bi prigovor izvanrednih okolnosti sigurno izazvao, zakonodavac Zajednice mogao je, a da time ne povrijedi svoju obvezu obrazlaganja, ne navesti razloge zbog kojih smatra da se stvarni zračni prijevoznici ne smiju pozivati na takav prigovor kako bi bili izuzeti od svojih obveza predviđenih člancima 5. i 6. te uredbe. Isto tako, te suprotno onome što tvrdi ELFAA, zakonodavac Zajednice mogao je u članku 7. navedene uredbe propisati načelo da se u slučaju otkazivanja leta plaća paušalna naknada štete kao i njezin iznos, ne navodeći razloge zbog kojih se odlučio za tu mjeru i taj iznos, a da time ne dovede u pitanje zakonitost samog akta.
73 Second, the standardised and immediate measures laid down in Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 are not among those whose institution is regulated by the Montreal Convention, and are not inconsistent with that Convention. It follows that the provisions of Regulation No 261/2004 governing in this way certain rights of passengers in the event of long delays to flights were capable of being made subject to conditions different from those laid down by the Convention with regard to other rights. Accordingly, they are not in any way contrary to the provisions which are contained in Regulation No 2027/97 and were adopted, in accordance with Article 1 thereof, in order to implement the relevant provisions of the Montreal Convention.
73 Drugo, standardizirane i trenutačne mjere predviđene člankom 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 nisu među onim mjerama čije je izvršavanje uređeno Montrealskom konvencijom i nisu nespojive s tom konvencijom. Iz toga proizlazi da za odredbe Uredbe br. 261/2004 kojima su na taj način uređena određena prava putnika u slučaju znatnog kašnjenja leta mogu vrijediti uvjeti drukčiji od onih koje predmetna konvencija propisuje za druga prava. Zato te odredbe nisu ni na koji način u suprotnosti s odredbama Uredbe br. 2027/97 koje su u skladu s njezinim člankom 1. bile donese kako bi se provele relevantne odredbe Montrealske konvencije.
74 In those circumstances, the claimants in the main proceedings cannot maintain that, by not referring to Regulation No 2027/97, Regulation No 261/2004 was adopted in breach of the obligation to state reasons. Nor can Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 be read as having, in breach of the principle of legal certainty, denied the undertakings represented by the claimants in the main proceedings the ability to ascertain unequivocally the obligations owed by them as a consequence of the system resulting from Regulation No 2027/97.
74 U tim okolnostima, tužitelji u glavnom postupku ne mogu tvrditi da je donošenjem Uredbe br. 261/2004, zbog toga što se u njoj ne upućuje na Uredbu br. 2027/97, bila povrijeđena obveza obrazlaganja. Ni članak 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne može se tumačiti kao da je, suprotno načelu pravne sigurnosti, poduzetnicima koje zastupaju tužitelji u glavnom postupku uskratio mogućnost da nedvosmisleno znaju svoje obveze koje imaju na temelju mehanizma koji proizlazi iz Uredbe br. 2027/97.
75 Third, the claimants in the main proceedings submit that Regulation No 261/2004 envisages, in an inconsistent manner in the 14th and 15th recitals in its preamble, that extraordinary circumstances may limit or exclude an operating air carrier’s liability in the event of cancellation of, or long delays to, flights whereas Articles 5 and 6 of the regulation, which govern its obligations in such a case, do not accept such a defence to liability except with regard to the obligation to pay compensation.
75 Treće, tužitelji u glavnom postupku tvrde da je četrnaestom i petnaestom uvodnom izjavom Uredbe br. 261/2004 nedosljedno predviđena mogućnost ograničenja ili isključenja odgovornosti stvarnog zračnog prijevoznika u slučaju otkazivanja ili znatnog kašnjenja leta, dok člancima 5. i 6. navedene uredbe, kojima su za takve slučajeve utvrđene obveze stvarnog zračnog prijevoznika, nije, osim u pogledu obveze odštete, predviđen takav prigovor u pogledu odgovornosti.
76 However, it must be stated with regard to those submissions, first, that while the preamble to a Community measure may explain the latter’s content (see Alliance for Natural Health, paragraph 91), it cannot be relied upon as a ground for derogating from the actual provisions of the measure in question (Case C-162/97 Nilsson andOthers [1998] ECR I-7477, paragraph 54, and Case C-136/04 DeutschesMilch-Kontor [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 32). Second, the wording of those recitals indeed gives the impression that, generally, operating air carriers should be released from all their obligations in the event of extraordinary circumstances, and it accordingly gives rise to a certain ambiguity between the intention thus expressed by the Community legislature and the actual content of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 which do not make this defence to liability so general in character. However, such an ambiguity does not extend so far as to render incoherent the system set up by those two articles, which are themselves entirely unambiguous.
76 Međutim, u tom pogledu valja istaknuti da, s jedne strane, iako se preambulom nekog akta Zajednice može precizirati sadržaj tog akta (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu Alliance for Natural Health i dr., t. 91.), na nju se nije moguće pozivati kao na temelj za odstupanje od stvarnih odredaba predmetnog akta (presude od 19. studenog 1998., Nilsson i dr., C-162/97, Zb., str. I-7477., t. 54., i od 24. studenog 2005., Deutsches Milch-Kontor, C-136/04, još neobjavljena u Zborniku, t. 32.). S druge strane, tekst tih uvodnih izjava doista se može shvatiti kao da u slučaju izvanrednih okolnosti stvarni zračni prijevoznik općenito treba biti oslobođen svih svojih obveza, pa slijedom toga uzrokuje određenu dvosmislenost u pogledu tako izražene namjere zakonodavca Zajednice i samog sadržaja članaka 5. i 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 koji tom prigovoru u pogledu odgovornosti ne pridaju tako općenit značaj. Međutim, razina takve dvosmislenosti nije tolika da bi mehanizam uveden tim dvama posve nedvosmislenim člancima učinila nedosljednim.
"79 The principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of Community law, requires that measures implemented through Community provisions should be appropriate for attaining the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it (see, inter alia, Case C-210/00 KäsereiChampignon Hofmeister [2002] ECR I-6453, paragraph 59; Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, paragraph 122; and SwedishMatch, paragraph 47)."
"79 Najprije valja podsjetiti da prema načelu proporcionalnosti, koje je jedno od općih načela prava Zajednice, mjere koje se provode na temelju odredaba Zajednice moraju biti primjerene za ostvarenje zacrtanoga cilja i ne smiju prekoračiti okvire onoga što je potrebno za njegovo ostvarenje (vidjeti osobito presude od 11. srpnja 2002., Käserei Champignon Hofmeister, C-210/00, Zb., str. I-6453., t. 59.; od 10. prosinca 2002., British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, C-491/01, Zb., str. I-11453., t. 122., i prethodno navedenu presudu u predmetu Swedish Match, t. 47.)."
"80 With regard to judicial review of the conditions referred to in the previous paragraph, the Community legislature must be allowed a broad discretion in areas which involve political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments. Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in those fields can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue (see, to this effect, Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR I-5755, paragraph 58; Case C-233/94 Germany v Parliament and Council [1997] ECR I-2405, paragraphs 55 and 56; Case C-157/96 National Farmers’ Union and Others [1998] ECR I-2211, paragraph 61; and British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraph 123). That is so, in particular, in the field of the common transport policy (see, to this effect, in particular, Joined Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 SAM Schiffahrt and Stapf [1997] ECR I-4475, paragraph 23, and Joined Cases C-27/00 and C-122/00 Omega Air and Others [2002] ECR I-2569, paragraph 63)."
"80 Što se tiče sudskog nadzora uvjeta navedenih u prethodnoj točki, zakonodavcu Zajednice treba priznati široku diskrecijsku ovlast u područjima u kojima treba donijeti odluke političke, gospodarske i socijalne naravi i u kojima je pozvan izvršiti složene prosudbe. Zato na zakonitost mjere donesene u tim područjima može utjecati samo njezina očita neprimjerenost s obzirom na cilj koji nadležna institucija nastoji ostvariti (vidjeti, u tom smislu, presude od 12. studenog 1996., Ujedinjena Kraljevina/Vijeće, C-84/94, Zb., str. I-5755., t. 58.; od 13. svibnja 1997., Njemačka/Parlament i Vijeće, C-233/94, Zb., str. I-2405., t. 55. i 56.; od 5. svibnja 1998., National Farmers’ Union i dr., C-157/96, Zb., str. I-2211., t. 61., kao i prethodno navedenu presudu u predmetu British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 123.). To vrijedi osobito za područje zajedničke prometne politike (vidjeti u tom smislu osobito presude od 17. srpnja 1997., SAM Schiffahrt i Stapf, C-248/95 i C-249/95, Zb., str. I-4475., t. 23., i od 12. ožujka 2002., Omega Air i dr., C-27/00 i C-122/00, Zb., str. I-2569., t. 63.)."
83 Admittedly, in addition to this direct objective explicitly set out by the Community legislature, the regulation, like any other generally applicable legislation, may implicitly involve other, secondary, objectives such as, as the claimants in the main proceedings submit, that of reducing, through preventive action, the number of flights that are cancelled or subject to a long delay. The Court has the task of assessing first of all whether the measures adopted are manifestly inappropriate in the light of the regulation’s explicit objective, that relating to strengthening protection for passengers, the legitimacy of which is not in itself contested.
83 Naravno, osim tog neposrednog cilja koji je zakonodavac Zajednice izrijekom naveo, navedena uredba, kao i svaki drugi opći propis, može implicitno uključivati i druge, sekundarne, ciljeve poput, kao što to tužitelji u glavnom postupku tvrde, smanjenja, putem preventivnog djelovanja, preventivnim djelovanjem broja otkazanih letova ili letova koji znatno kasne. Zadaća Suda jest da prvo procijeni jesu li donesene mjere očito neprimjerene s obzirom na izričit cilj Uredbe, a to je poboljšanje zaštite putnika, čija legitimnost sama po sebi nije sporna.
85 Second, it is not in dispute that the extent of the various measures chosen by the Community legislature varies according to the significance of the damage suffered by the passengers, its significance being assessed by reference either to the length of the delay and the wait for the next flight or to the time taken to inform them of the flight’s cancellation. The criteria thus adopted for determining the passengers’ entitlement to those measures do not therefore appear in any way unrelated to the requirement for proportionality.
85 Drugo, nije sporno da opseg raznih mjera koje je zakonodavac Zajednice donio varira ovisno o znatnosti štete koju su putnici pretrpjeli, a koja se prosuđuje s obzirom na vrijeme kašnjenja i čekanja na idući let ili na rok u kojem su putnici bili obaviješteni o otkazivanju leta. Stoga tako doneseni kriteriji za utvrđivanje prava putnika na te mjere nikako nisu nepovezani sa zahtjevom proporcionalnosti.
86 Third, the standardised and immediate compensatory measures such as the re-routing of passengers, the supply of refreshments, meals or accommodation or the making available of means of communication with third parties are designed to cater for passengers’ immediate needs on the spot, whatever the cause of the flight’s cancellation or delay. Given that these measures vary, as stated in the previous paragraph of this judgment, according to the significance of the damage suffered by the passengers, they likewise do not appear to be manifestly inappropriate merely because carriers cannot rely on the extraordinary circumstances defence.
86 Treće, cilj standardiziranih i trenutačnih mjera popravljanja štete, poput preusmjeravanja putnika, posluživanja osvježavajućih pića ili obroka, osiguranja smještaja, omogućavanja komunikacije s trećima, jest na licu mjesta zadovoljiti trenutačne potrebe putnika bez obzira na to koji je razlog otkazivanja ili kašnjenja leta. Budući da te mjere, kako je to navedeno u prethodnoj točki ove presude, variraju ovisno o znatnosti štete koju su putnici pretrpjeli, nisu očito neprimjerene samo zato što se prijevoznici ne mogu pozvati na prigovor izvanrednih okolnosti.
87 Fourth, it has not been established that if, as advocated by ELFAA, passengers were to take out voluntary insurance to cover the risks inherent in flight delays and cancellations, that would in any event make it possible to remedy the damage suffered by passengers on the spot. Such a measure cannot, therefore, be regarded as being more appropriate to the objective pursued than those chosen by the Community legislature.
87 Četvrto, nije utvrđeno da bi dobrovoljno osiguranje putnika od rizika nužno povezanih s kašnjenjima ili otkazivanjima letova, kako to zagovara ELFAA, u svakom slučaju omogućilo popravljanje štete koju dotični putnici trpe na licu mjesta. Stoga se takva mjera ne može smatrati primjerenijom za ostvarenje predviđenog cilja od mjera za koje se odlučio zakonodavac Zajednice.
88 Fifth, the harmful consequences to which a delay gives rise and which Regulation No 261/2004 seeks to remedy are in no way related to the price paid for a ticket. Therefore, the argument that the measures chosen to alleviate those consequences should have been determined in proportion to the cost of the ticket cannot be upheld.
88 Peto, štetne posljedice kašnjenja koje Uredba br. 261/2004 nastoji otkloniti nemaju nikakve veze s cijenom plaćenom za kartu. Stoga argument prema kojem su mjere za ublažavanje tih posljedica trebale biti utvrđene razmjerno cijeni karte nije branjiv.
89 Sixth, while IATA and ELFAA contend that the abovementioned measures could well have significant consequences for carriers’ financial burdens and are not appropriate to the regulation’s secondary objective of reducing the number of flights that are cancelled or subject to a long delay, it must be stated that figures on the frequency of those delays and cancellations have not been given in the proceedings before the Court. Accordingly, the theoretical costs which those measures involve for airlines, as put forward by the parties concerned, do not in any event enable it to be regarded as established that those effects would be out of proportion to the interest in the measures.
89 Šesto, iako IATA i ELFAA tvrde da bi prethodno navedene mjere mogle znatno povećati financijsko opterećenje prijevoznika i da nisu primjerene za ostvarenje sekundarnog cilja Uredbe, odnosno za smanjenje broja otkazanih letova ili znatnih kašnjenja letova, valja utvrditi da tijekom postupka pred Sudom nisu bili predočeni brojčani podaci o učestalosti tih kašnjenja i otkazivanja. Zato teoretski troškovi, kako su ih navele zainteresirane stranke, koje bi te mjere predstavljale za zrakoplovne kompanije, ni u kojem slučaju ne daju osnovu da se smatra utvrđenim da bi ti učinci bili neproporcionalni s obzirom na cilj predmetnih mjera.
90 Moreover, the discharge of obligations pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 is without prejudice to air carrier’s rights to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with national law, as Article 13 of the regulation provides. Such compensation accordingly may reduce or even remove the financial burden borne by the carriers in consequence of those obligations. Nor does it appear unreasonable for those obligations initially to be borne, subject to the abovementioned right to compensation, by the air carriers with which the passengers concerned have a contract of carriage that entitles them to a flight that should be neither cancelled nor delayed.
90 Nadalje, ispunjenje obveza u skladu s Uredbom br. 261/2004 ne dovodi u pitanje prava zračnih prijevoznika da, kako je to predviđeno člankom 13. te uredbe, u skladu s nacionalnim pravom od svih, uključujući trećih, traže popravljanje štete. Stoga takvo popravljanje štete može umanjiti ili čak ukloniti financijsko opterećenje koje zračni prijevoznici snose kao posljedica tih obveza. Isto tako nije nerazumno da, pod uvjetom prethodno navedenog prava na popravljanje štete, te obveze prvo snose zračni prijevoznici s kojima su predmetni putnici sklopili ugovor o prijevozu na temelju kojeg imaju pravo na let koji ne smije biti ni otkazan ni odgođen.
91 Seventh, so far as concerns the compensation prescribed in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, which passengers may claim by virtue of Article 5 when they have been informed of a flight cancellation too late, air carriers can be exempted from payment of that compensation if they prove that the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Given the existence of such a ground for exemption and of the conditions restricting the application of this obligation to which air carriers are not subject if the information is provided sufficiently early or accompanied by offers of re-routing, the obligation does not appear manifestly inappropriate to the objective pursued. Furthermore, the amount of the compensation, set at EUR 250, 400 or 600 depending on the distance of the flights concerned, likewise does not appear excessive and indeed, as maintained by the Commission in its observations without being contradicted, essentially amounts to an update of the level of compensation laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport (OJ 1991 L 36, p. 5), taking account of inflation since its entry into force.
91 Sedmo, što se tiče odštete predviđene člankom 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004, koju putnici mogu tražiti na temelju članka 5. ako su o otkazivanju leta bili obaviješteni prekasno, zračni prijevoznici mogu biti oslobođeni plaćanja navedene odštete ako dokažu da je do otkazivanja leta došlo zbog izvanrednih okolnosti koje ne bi bilo moguće izbjeći čak i da su bile poduzete sve razumne mjere. S obzirom na postojanje takve osnove za izuzeće kao i uvjeta koji ograničavaju primjenu te obveze kojoj zračni prijevoznici ne podliježu ako su informacije dane dovoljno rano ili popraćene ponudama za preusmjeravanje, obveza nije očito neprimjerena s obzirom na predviđeni cilj. Nadalje, odšteta koja ovisno o duljini predmetnog leta iznosi 250, 400 ili 600 eura isto tako nije pretjerana i, uostalom, kako to u svojim primjedbama navodi Komisija i u čemu joj nitko ne proturječi, u biti odgovara revalorizaciji razine odštete predviđene Uredbom Vijeća (EEZ) br. 295/91 od 4. veljače 1991. o zajedničkim pravilima za sustav odštete u slučaju uskraćivanja ukrcaja u redovnom zračnom prijevozu (SL L 36, str. 5.), pri čemu se vodilo računa o inflaciji u razdoblju od njezina stupanja na snagu.
94 ELFAA submits that the low-fare airlines which it represents suffer discriminatory treatment since the measures prescribed in those articles impose the same obligations on all air carriers without distinction on the basis of their pricing policies and the services that they offer. Furthermore, Community law does not impose the same obligations on other means of transport.
94 ELFAA navodi da su niskotarifne zrakoplovne kompanije koje ona zastupa diskriminirane jer se mjerama koje su predviđene tim člancima iste obveze nameću svim zračnim prijevoznicima bez obzira na to koje su njihove cjenovne politike ili usluge koje nude. Osim toga, pravo Zajednice ne nameće iste obveze na druga prijevozna sredstva.
96 First, having regard in particular to the manner in which they operate, the conditions governing their accessibility and the distribution of their networks, different modes of transport are not interchangeable as regards the conditions of their use (see, to this effect, SAM Schiffahrt and Stapf, paragraph 34). The situation of undertakings operating in each of those different transport sectors is accordingly not comparable.
96 U tom pogledu prvo valja primijetiti da različite vrste prijevoza, uzimajući u obzir osobito njihove načine na koje se odvijaju, uvjete njihove dostupnosti i razmještaja njihovih mreža, nisu međusobno zamjenjive u pogledu uvjeta njihova korištenja (u tom smislu vidjeti prethodno citiranu presudu u predmetu SAM Schiffahrt i Stapf, t. 34.). Stoga položaj poduzetnika koji posluju u svakomu od tih različitih sektora prijevoza nije usporediv.
97 Second, with regard to air transport, passengers whose flights are cancelled or subject to a long delay are in an objectively different situation from that experienced by passengers on other means of transport in the event of incidents of the same nature. Because, in particular, of the location of airports, which are generally outside urban centres, and of the particular procedures for checking-in and reclaiming baggage, the inconvenience suffered by passengers when such incidents occur is not comparable.
97 Drugo, što se tiče zračnog prijevoza, valja utvrditi da su putnici čiji su letovi otkazani ili znatno kasne objektivno,u slučaju incidenata iste vrste, u drukčijem položaju od položaja putnika koji koriste druga prijevozna sredstva. U prvom redu zbog položaja zračnih luka, koje se obično nalaze izvan urbanih središta, kao i zbog posebnih postupaka prijave i preuzimanja prtljage, neugodnosti koje u slučaju takvih incidenata pretrpe putnici nisu usporedive.
98 Finally, the damage suffered by passengers of air carriers in the event of cancellation of, or a long delay to, a flight is similar whatever the airline with which they have a contract and is unrelated to the pricing policies operated by the airline. Accordingly, if the Community legislature was not to infringe the principle of equality, having regard to the aim pursued by Regulation No 261/2004 of increasing protection for all passengers of air carriers, it was incumbent upon it to treat all airlines identically.
98 Nadalje, štete koje pretrpe putnici zračnih prijevoznika u slučaju otkazivanja ili znatnog kašnjenja leta slične su bez obzira na to s kojom su zrakoplovnom kompanijom ti putnici sklopili ugovor i nemaju nikakve veze s cjenovnim politikama koje te zrakoplovne kompanije primjenjuju. Zato je s obzirom na cilj Uredbe, odnosno poboljšanje zaštite svih putnika zračnih prijevoznika, zakonodavac Zajednice dužan prema svim zračnim prijevoznicima postupati jednako jer bi u suprotnome prekršio načelo jednakosti.