natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
36 By its fourth and fifth questions, which should be examined together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight due to `extraordinary circumstances' such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the obligation to provide care to passengers laid down in those provisions is limited in temporal or monetary terms and, if not, whether those provisions thus interpreted are invalid in the light of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an `equitable balance of interests' referred to in the Montreal Convention or Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter.
36 Svojim četvrtim i petim pitanjem, koje treba ispitati zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe 261/2004 tumačiti tako da je u slučaju otkazivanja leta zbog „izvanrednih okolnosti" poput onih u glavnom postupku, obveza pružanja skrbi putnicima utvrđena u tim odredbama ograničena u vremenskom ili novčanom smislu, i ako nije, jesu li te odredbe tumačene na taj način nevaljane s obzirom na načela proporcionalnosti i nediskriminacije, načelo „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa" sadržano u Montrealskoj konvenciji ili članke 16. i 17. Povelje.
37 It should be noted that, in the case of cancellation of a flight on account of `extraordinary circumstances', the European Union legislature sought to modify the obligations of air carriers laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 261/2004.
37 Valja napomenuti da je u slučaju otkazivanja leta zbog „izvanrednih okolnosti" zakonodavac Unije namjeravao urediti obveze zračnih prijevoznika predviđene u članku 5. stavku 1. Uredbe br. 261/2004.
38 Under recital 15 and Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, by way of derogation from the provisions of Article 5(1), the air carrier is thus exempted from its obligation to compensate passengers under Article 7 of that regulation if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances which are beyond the air carrier's actual control (Nelson and Others, paragraph 39).
38 U skladu s uvodnom izjavom 15. i člankom 5. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 261/2004, odstupajući od odredaba članka 5. stavka 1., zračni prijevoznik se izuzima od obveze plaćanja odštete putnicima u skladu s člankom 7. te uredbe ako može dokazati da je otkazivanje uzrokovano izvanrednim okolnostima koje nisu mogle biti spriječene, čak i da su bile poduzete sve razumne mjere, to jest okolnostima koje su izvan stvarne kontrole zračnog prijevoznika (gore navedena presuda Nelson i dr., t. 39.).
39 In that regard, the Court has held that, in such circumstances, the air carrier is only released from its obligation to provide compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 and that, consequently, its obligation to provide care in accordance with Article 9 of that regulation remains (see, to that effect, Case C-294/10 Eglītis and Ratnieks [2011] ECR I-3983, paragraphs 23 and 24).
39 U vezi s tim Sud je istaknuo da se u takvim okolnostima zračni prijevoznik oslobađa samo obveze plaćanja odštete u skladu s člankom 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 te da, stoga, ostaje njegova obveza pružanja skrbi u skladu s člankom 9. te uredbe (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 12. svibnja 2011., Eglītis i Ratnieks, C-294/10, Zb., str. I-3983., t. 23. i 24.).
40 Furthermore, no limitation, whether temporal or monetary, of the obligation to provide care to passengers in extraordinary circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings is apparent from the wording of Regulation No 261/2004.
40 Nadalje, iz teksta Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne vidi se nikakvo ograničenje, bilo vremensko ili novčano, u vezi s obvezom pružanja skrbi putnicima u izvanrednim okolnostima poput onih o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku.
41 It follows from Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 that all the obligations to provide care to passengers whose flight is cancelled are imposed, in their entirety, on the air carrier for the whole period during which the passengers concerned must await their re-routing.
41 Iz članka 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 proizlazi da su obveze pružanja skrbi putnicima čiji je let otkazan u cijelosti na zračnom prijevozniku, za cjelokupno razdoblje tijekom kojeg dotični putnici moraju čekati na preusmjeravanje.
To that effect, it is clear from Article 9(1)(b) that hotel accommodation is to be offered free of charge by the air carrier during the `necessary' period.
U tom smislu iz članka 9. stavka 1. točke (b) proizlazi da zračni prijevoznik mora ponuditi besplatni hotelski smještaj tijekom razdoblja u kojem je to „potrebno".
42 Moreover, any interpretation seeking the recognition of limits, whether temporal or monetary, on the obligation of the air carrier to provide care to passengers whose flight has been cancelled would have the effect of jeopardising the aims pursued by Regulation No 261/2004 recalled in paragraph 31 of this judgment, in that, beyond the limitation adopted, passengers would be deprived of all care and thus left to themselves.
42 Osim toga, svako tumačenje kojim se žele priznati ograničenja, vremenska ili novčana, u vezi s obvezom zračnog prijevoznika da pruži skrb putnicima čiji je let otkazan, ugrozilo bi ciljeve Uredbe br. 261/2004 na koje je ukazano u točki 31. ove presude, budući da bi izvan usvojenih ograničenja, putnicima bila uskraćena sva skrb te bi tako bili prepušteni sami sebi.
As the Advocate General noted in point 52 of his Opinion, the provision of care to such passengers is particularly important in the case of extraordinary circumstances which persist over a long time and it is precisely in situations where the waiting period occasioned by the cancellation of a flight is particularly lengthy that it is necessary to ensure that an air passenger whose flight has been cancelled can have access to essential goods and services throughout that period.
Kao što je nezavisni odvjetnik napomenuo u točki 52. svojeg mišljenja, pružanje skrbi takvim putnicima izuzetno je važno u slučaju izvanrednih okolnosti koje traju tijekom duljeg razdoblja i upravo je u situaciji kada je vrijeme čekanja uzrokovano otkazivanjem leta posebno dugo, potrebno osigurati da putnik u zračnom prometu čiji je let otkazan može tijekom cijelog tog razdoblja čekanja imati pristup osnovnim robama i uslugama.
43 Consequently, and contrary to what Ryanair claims, it cannot be deduced from Regulation No 261/2004 that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the obligation referred to in Articles 5 and 9 of that regulation to provide care to passengers must be subject to a temporal or monetary limitation.
43 Stoga se, suprotno onome što tvrdi Ryanair, iz Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne može zaključiti da u okolnostima poput onih o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku obveza pružanja skrbi putnicima iz članaka 5. i 9. te uredbe mora podlijegati vremenskom ili novčanom ograničenju.
44 However, it is necessary to ensure that the interpretation in the preceding paragraph does not conflict with the principles of proportionality, of an `equitable balance of interests' referred to in the Montreal Convention and of non-discrimination, or with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter.
44 Međutim, potrebno je osigurati da tumačenje u prethodnoj točki ne bude u suprotnosti s načelima proporcionalnosti, „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa" iz Montrealske konvencije i nediskriminacije, ili s člancima 16. i 17. Povelje.
Under a general principle of interpretation, a European Union measure must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity and in conformity with primary law as a whole (Case C-149/10 Chatzi [2010] ECR I-8489, paragraph 43).
Prema općem načelu tumačenja, akt Unije mora se tumačiti u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri tako da se ne dovede u pitanje njegova valjanost kao i u skladu s primarnim pravom kao cjelinom (presuda od 16. rujna 2010., Chatzi, C-149/10, Zb., str. I-8489., t. 43.).
45 As regards, first, the principle of proportionality, it must be noted that the Court has already had occasion to find, in Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2010] ECR I-403, paragraphs 78 to 92, that Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 are not invalid by reason of infringement of the principle of proportionality.
45 Što se tiče načela proporcionalnosti, prvo valja napomenuti da je Sud već imao priliku utvrditi, u presudi od 10. siječnja 2006., IATA i ELFAA, C-344/04, Zb., str. I-403., t. od 78. do 92., da članci od 5. do 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 nisu nevaljani u smislu kršenja načela proporcionalnosti.
46 There is nothing to justify, even on the basis of the lack of a temporal or monetary limit on the obligation to provide care in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the finding of validity made by the Court in that case being called into question.
46 Ne postoji ništa, čak ni na temelju nepostojanja vremenskog ili novčanog ograničenja u pogledu obveze pružanja skrbi u okolnostima poput onih o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku, na temelju čega bi se dovela u pitanje utvrđenje valjanost u toj presudi Suda.
47 The fact that the obligation defined in Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide care entails, as Ryanair claims, undoubted financial consequences for air carriers is not such as to invalidate that finding, since those consequences cannot be considered disproportionate to the aim of ensuring a high level of protection for passengers.
47 Činjenica da obveza pružanja pomoći određena u članku 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 uključuje, kako tvrdi Ryanair, nedvojbene financijske posljedice za zračne prijevoznike nije takve prirode da uzrokuje poništenje ove ocjene budući da se te posljedice ne mogu smatrati neproporcionalnim u odnosu na cilj osiguravanja visoke razine zaštite za putnike.
48 The importance of the objective of consumer protection, which includes the protection of air passengers, may justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain economic operators (Nelson and Others, paragraph 81 and the case-law cited).
48 Važnost cilja zaštite potrošača, koja uključuje i zaštitu putnika u zračnom prometu, može opravdati čak i znatne negativne ekonomske posljedice za neke gospodarske subjekte (gore navedena presuda Nelson i dr., t. 81. i navedena sudska praksa).
49 In addition, as the Advocate General noted in points 58 and 60 of his Opinion, air carriers should, as experienced operators, foresee costs linked to the fulfilment, where relevant, of their obligation to provide care and, furthermore, may pass on the costs incurred as a result of that obligation to airline ticket prices.
49 Osim toga, kako je nezavisni odvjetnik naveo u točkama 58. do 60. svojeg mišljenja, zračni prijevoznici bi kao iskusni operatori morali predvidjeti troškove povezane s ispunjavanjem, prema potrebi, svoje obveze pružanja skrbi, te bi štoviše, troškove koji nastaju kao posljedica te obveze mogli prenijeti na cijene zrakoplovnih karata.
50 It follows that Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 are not contrary to the principle of proportionality.
50 Iz toga proizlazi da članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 nisu u suprotnosti s načelom proporcionalnosti.
51 None the less, an air passenger may only obtain, by way of compensation for the failure of the air carrier to comply with its obligation referred to in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide care, reimbursement of the amounts which, in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, proved necessary, appropriate and reasonable to make up for the shortcomings of the air carrier in the provision of care to that passenger, a matter which is for the national court to assess.
51 Ipak, putnik u zračnom prometu može, putem odštete zbog toga što zračni prijevoznik nije ispunio svoju obvezu pružanja skrbi iz članka 5. stavka 1. točke (b) i članka 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004, dobiti samo nadoknadu iznosa za koje se s obzirom na specifične okolnosti svakog slučaja dokaže da su potrebni, primjereni i razumni u smislu nadoknade propusta zračnog prijevoznika u pružanju skrbi tom putniku, što je na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi.
52 As regards, second, the principle of an `equitable balance of interests' referred to in the last paragraph of the preamble to the Montreal Convention, suffice it to note that the standardised and immediate compensatory measures laid down by Regulation No 261/2004, which include the obligation to provide care to passengers whose flight has been cancelled, are not among those whose institution is governed by the Montreal Convention (see, to that effect, Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
52 Drugo, što se tiče načela „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa" iz posljednje točke preambule Montrealske konvencije, dovoljno je napomenuti da se standardizirane i trenutačne mjere popravljanja štete utvrđene u Uredbi br. 261/2004, koje uključuju obvezu pružanja skrbi putnicima čiji su letovi bili otkazani, ne ubrajaju u one mjere čija se uspostava regulira Montrealskom konvencijom (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Wallentin-Hermann, t.
53 Therefore, there is no need to assess the validity of the aforesaid provisions in the light of the principle of an `equitable balance of interests' referred to in that Convention.
32. i navedenu sudsku praksu). 53 Stoga nema potrebe za ocjenom valjanosti gore navedenih odredaba u odnosu na načelo „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa" iz te konvencije.
54 As regards, third, the general principle of non-discrimination or equal treatment, Ryanair claims that the obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide care in a situation such as that as issue in the main proceedings imposes obligations on air carriers which, in circumstances similar to those at issue in the main proceedings, do not fall upon other modes of transport governed by Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14), Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 1) and Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 1), even though passengers stranded by widespread and prolonged disruption of transport find themselves in an identical situation whatever their mode of transport.
54 Treće, što se tiče općeg načela nediskriminacije ili jednakog postupanja, Ryanair tvrdi da obveza pružanja skrbi utvrđena u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 u situaciji poput one o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku nameće zračnim prijevoznicima obveze kojima, u okolnostima sličnim onima o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku, ne podliježu druge vrste prijevoza uređene Uredbom (EZ) br. 1371/2007 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. listopada 2007. o pravima i obvezama putnika u željezničkom prometu (SL L 315, str. 14.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 7., svezak 10., str. 143.), Uredbom (EU) br. 1177/2010 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 24. studenoga 2010. o pravima putnika kada putuju morem ili unutarnjim plovnim putovima i o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 2006/2004 (SL L 334, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 15., svezak 13., str. 142.) i Uredbom (EU) br. 181/2011 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. veljače 2011. o pravima putnika u autobusnom prijevozu i izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 2006/2004 (SL L 55, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 7., svezak 12., str. 237.), iako su putnici koji se nađu u opsežnom i dugotrajnom prekidu prijevoza u identičnoj situaciji bez obzira na njihov način prijevoza.
55 In that respect, it should be noted that the Court has already held in IATA and ELFAA, paragraphs 93 to 99, that Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 do not infringe the principle of equal treatment.
55 U tom smislu valja napomenuti da je Sud već ocijenio u gore navedenoj presudi IATA i ELFAA, t. od 93. do 99., da članci od 5. do 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne krše načelo jednakog postupanja.
56 The situation of undertakings operating in the different transport sectors is not comparable since the different modes of transport, having regard to the manner in which they operate, the conditions governing their accessibility and the distribution of their networks, are not interchangeable as regards the conditions of their use (IATA and ELFAA, paragraph 96).
56 Položaj poduzetnika koji posluju u svakomu od tih različitih sektora prijevoza nije usporediv, budući da različite vrste prijevoza, uzimajući u obzir osobito načine na koje se odvijaju, uvjete njihove dostupnosti i razmještaja njihovih mreža, nisu međusobno zamjenjive u pogledu uvjeta njihova korištenja (gore navedena presuda IATA i ELFAA, t. 96.).
57 In those circumstances, the European Union legislature was able to establish rules providing for a level of customer protection that varied according to the transport sector concerned.
57 U tim je okolnostima zakonodavac Unije mogao uspostaviti pravila koja predviđaju različitu razinu zaštite potrošača ovisno o predmetnom sektoru prijevoza.
58 It follows that Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 do not infringe the principle of non-discrimination.
58 Iz toga proizlazi da članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne krše načelo nediskriminacije.
59 As regards, fourth, Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter, guaranteeing freedom to conduct a business and the right to property respectively, Ryanair claims that the obligation to provide care to passengers imposed on air carriers in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings has the effect of depriving air carriers of part of the fruits of their labour and of their investments.
59 Četvrto, što se tiče članaka 16. i 17. Povelje, kojima se jamči sloboda poduzetništva odnosno pravo vlasništva, Ryanair tvrdi da obveza pružanja skrbi putnicima nametnuta zračnim prijevoznicima u okolnostima poput onih o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku, ima učinak uskraćivanja zračnim prijevoznicima dijela plodova njihovog rada i njihovih ulaganja.
60 In that regard, it must be noted, first, that freedom to conduct a business and the right to property are not absolute rights but must be considered in relation to their social function (see, to that effect, Case C-544/10 Deutsches Weintor [2012] ECR, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).
60 U vezi s tim valja napomenuti, prvo, da sloboda poduzetništva i pravo vlasništva nisu apsolutni prerogativi, nego se moraju razmatrati s obzirom na njihovu funkciju u društvu (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 6. rujna 2012., Deutsches Weintor, C-544/10, t. 54. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
61 Next, Article 52(1) of the Charter accepts that limitations may be imposed on the exercise of rights enshrined by it as long as the limitations are provided for by law, respect the essence of those rights and freedoms, and, subject to the principle of proportionality, are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
61 Naime, članak 52. stavak 1. Povelje priznaje ograničenja pri ostvarivanju tih prava samo ako su ograničenja predviđena zakonom, poštuju bit tih prava te ako su - u skladu s načelom proporcionalnosti - potrebna i ako doista odgovaraju ciljevima od općeg interesa koje priznaje Unija ili potrebi zaštite prava i sloboda drugih osoba.
62 Lastly, when several rights protected by the European Union legal order clash, such an assessment must be carried out in accordance with the need to reconcile the requirements of the protection of those various rights and striking a fair balance between them (see, to that effect, Case C-275/06 Promusicae [2008] ECR I-271, paragraphs 65 and 66, and Deutsches Weintor, paragraph 47).
62 Konačno, kada je u sukobu nekoliko prava koje štiti pravni poredak Unije, takva se procjena mora izvesti u skladu s potrebom usklađivanja zahtjeva zaštite tih različitih prava, postižući pravednu ravnotežu među njima (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 29. siječnja 2008., Promusicae, C-275/06, Zb., str. I-271., t. 65. i 66., i gore navedenu presudu Deutsches Weintor, t. 47.).
63 In this case, the referring court mentions Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter.
63 U ovom predmetu sud koji je uputio zahtjev spominje članke 16. i 17.
However, it is also necessary to take account of Article 38 thereof which, like Article 169 TFEU, seeks to ensure a high level of protection for consumers, including air passengers, in European Union policies.
Povelje. Međutim, treba također uzeti u obzir njezin članak 38. kojim se, kao i člankom 169. UFEU-a, želi u politikama Europske unije osigurati visoka razina zaštite za potrošače, uključujući putnike u zračnom prometu.
As has been noted in paragraph 31 of this judgment, protection of those passengers is among the principal aims of Regulation No 261/2004.
Kako je navedeno u točki 31. ove presude, zaštita tih putnika je među glavnim ciljevima Uredbe br. 261/2004.
64 It follows from paragraphs 45 to 49 of this judgment relating to the principle of proportionality that Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, as interpreted in paragraph 43 of this judgment, must be considered to comply with the requirement intended to reconcile the various fundamental rights involved and strike a fair balance between them.
64 Iz točaka 45. do 49. ove presude koje se odnose na načelo proporcionalnosti proizlazi da treba smatrati da su članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004, kako se tumače u točki 43. ove presude, u skladu sa zahtjevom usklađivanja različitih uključenih osnovnih prava i postizanja pravedne ravnoteže između njih.
65 Therefore, those provisions do not breach Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter.
65 Stoga ove odredbe ne krše članke 16. i 17. Povelje.
66 Consequently, the answer to the fourth and fifth questions is that Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight due to `extraordinary circumstances' of a duration such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation to provide care to air passengers laid down in those provisions must be complied with, and the validity of those provisions is not affected.
66 Prema tome, na četvrto i peto pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 treba tumačiti tako da se u slučaju otkazivanja leta radi „izvanrednih okolnosti" u trajanju poput onog u glavnom postupku, obveza pružanja skrbi putnicima utvrđena u tim odredbama mora ispuniti, bez utjecaja na valjanost tih odredaba.
However, an air passenger may only obtain, by way of compensation for the failure of the air carrier to comply with its obligation referred to in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide care, reimbursement of the amounts which, in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, proved necessary, appropriate and reasonable to make up for the shortcomings of the air carrier in the provision of care to that passenger, a matter which is for the national court to assess.
Međutim, putnik u zračnom prometu može, putem odštete zbog toga što zračni prijevoznik nije ispunio svoju obvezu pružanja skrbi iz članka 5. stavka 1. točke (b) i članka 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004, dobiti samo nadoknadu iznosa za koje se s obzirom na specifične okolnosti svakog slučaja dokaže da su potrebni, primjereni i razumni u smislu nadoknade propusta zračnog prijevoznika u pružanju skrbi tim putnicima, što je na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi.
On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:
Slijedom navedenog, Sud (treće vijeće) odlučuje: