natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
46 It must be borne in mind in that regard that the principle of effective judicial protection is a general principle of EU law, to which expression is now given by Article 47 of the Charter (see Case C-279/09 DEB [2010] ECR I-13849, paragraphs 30 and 31; order in Case C-457/09 Chartry [2011] ECR I-819, paragraph 25; and Case C-69/10 Samba Diouf [2011] ECR I-7151, paragraph 49).
46 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da je načelo djelotvorne sudske zaštite opće načelo prava Unije, koje je danas izraženo u članku 47. Povelje (vidjeti presudu od 2. prosinca 2010., DEB, C-279/09, Zb., str. I-13849. t. 30. i 31.; rješenje od 1. ožujka 2011., Chartry, C-457/09, Zb., str. I-819. t. 25., kao i presudu od 28. srpnja 2011., Samba Diouf, C-69/10, Zb., str. I-7151., t. 49.).
47 Article 47 of the Charter secures in EU law the protection afforded by Article 6(1) of the ECHR. It is necessary, therefore, to refer only to Article 47 (Case C-386/10 P Chalkor v Commission [2011] ECR I-13085, paragraph 51).
47 Spomenuti članak 47. Povelje u pravu Unije osigurava zaštitu dodijeljenu člankom 6. stavkom 1. EKLJP-a. Stoga se valja pozivati isključivo na tu prvu odredbu (presuda od 8. prosinca 2011., Chalkor/Komisija, C-386/10 P, Zb., str. I-13085., t. 51.).
48 The principle of effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the Charter comprises various elements; in particular, the rights of the defence, the principle of equality of arms, the right of access to a tribunal and the right to be advised, defended and represented.
48 Načelo djelotvorne sudske zaštite utvrđeno u članku 47. Povelje obuhvaća različite elemente, a posebno pravo na obranu, načelo jednakosti oružja, pravo pristupa pravosuđu i pravo da bude savjetovan, branjen i zastupan.
49 With regard, in particular, to the right of access to a tribunal, it must be made clear that, for a `tribunal' to be able to determine a dispute concerning rights and obligations arising under EU law in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter, it must have power to consider all the questions of fact and law that are relevant to the case before it.
49 Osobito što se tiče pristupa pravosuđu, valja pojasniti da „sud", kako bi mogao odlučiti o sporu u pogledu prava i obveza koji proizlaze iz prava Unije u skladu s člankom 47. Povelje, treba imati nadležnost ispitati sve činjenične i pravne elemente relevantne za predmet koji se vodi pred njim.
50 It is true in that respect that, according to the Court's case-law (Case C-344/98 Masterfoods and HB [2000] ECR I-11369 [HYPERLINK: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/query.html?DN=61998C?0344&locale=EN], paragraph 52), which is now given legislative expression in Article 16 of Regulation No 1/2003, when national courts rule on agreements, decisions or practices under, inter alia, Article 101 TFEU which are already the subject of a Commission decision, they cannot take decisions running counter to the decision adopted by the Commission.
50 Točno je u tom pogledu da u skladu sa sudskom praksom Suda (presuda od 14. rujna 2000., Masterfoods i HB, C-344/98, Zb., str. I-11369., t. 52.), koju danas nalazimo kodificiranu u članku 16. Uredbe br. 1/2003, kada nacionalni sudovi odlučuju o sporazumima, odlukama ili praksi, koji su obuhvaćeni osobito člankom 101. UFEU-a i koji već jesu predmet odluke Komisije, ti sudovi ne mogu donositi odluke suprotne odluci koju je donijela Komisija.
51 That rule also applies when national courts are hearing an action for damages for loss sustained as a result of an agreement or practice which has been found by a decision of the Commission to infringe Article 101 TFEU.
51 To načelo primjenjuje se i ako je pred nacionalnim sudovima pokrenuta tužba za naknadu štete zbog sporazuma za koji ili prakse za koju je odlukom Komisije utvrđeno da su protivni članku 101. UFEU-a.
52 An application of the EU competition rules is thus based on an obligation of sincere cooperation between the national courts, on the one hand, and the Commission and the EU Courts, on the other, in the context of which each acts on the basis of the role assigned to it by the Treaty (Masterfoods and HB, paragraph 56).
52 Primjena pravila Unije o tržišnoj utakmici, dakle, počiva na obvezi lojalne suradnje, s jedne strane, nacionalnih sudova i, s druge, Komisije odnosno sudova Unije, u okviru koje svatko djeluje na temelju uloge koja mu je dodijeljena Ugovorom (presuda Masterfoods i HB, prethodno navedena, t. 56.).
53 It must be borne in mind in that regard that it is the EU Courts - not the courts of the Member States - which have exclusive jurisdiction to review the legality of the acts of the EU institutions.
53 Važno je podsjetiti u tom pogledu da isključiva nadležnost da nadziru zakonitost akata institucija Unije pripada sudovima Unije, a ne nacionalnim sudovima.
National courts do not have power to declare such acts invalid (see, to that effect, Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199 [HYPERLINK: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/query.html?DN=61985??0314&locale=EN], paragraphs 12 to 20).
Potonji nemaju ovlasti da takve akte proglase nevaljanima (vidjeti u tom smislu osobito presudu od 22. listopada 1987., Foto-Frost, predmet 314/85, Zb., str. 4199., t. od 12. do 20.).
54 The rule that national courts may not take decisions running counter to a Commission decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU is thus a specific expression of the division of powers, within the EU, between, on the one hand, national courts and, on the other, the Commission and the EU Courts.
54 Pravilo prema kojem nacionalni sudovi ne mogu donositi odluke suprotne odluci Komisije je dakle poseban izraz podjele ovlasti unutar Unije između, s jedne strane, nacionalnih sudova i, s druge, Komisije i sudova Unije.
55 That rule does not mean, however, that the defendants in the main proceedings are denied their right of access to a tribunal, as referred to in Article 47 of the Charter.
55 Međutim, to pravilo ne podrazumijeva da se tužiteljima u glavnom postupku uskraćuje pravo na pristup pravosuđu u smislu članka 47. Povelje.
56 Indeed, EU law provides for a system of judicial review of Commission decisions relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU which affords all the safeguards required by Article 47 of the Charter.
56 Doista, pravo Unije predviđa sustav sudskog nadzora odluka Komisije o postupcima primjene članka 101. UFEU-a, koji pruža sva jamstva iz članka 47. Povelje.
57 In this connection, it must be stated that the legality of a Commission decision may be reviewed by the EU Courts under Article 263 TFEU.
57 U vezi s tim važno je utvrditi da odluka Komisije može podlijegati nadzoru zakonitosti koji obavljaju sudovi Unije na temelju članka 263. UFEU-a.
In this case, the defendants in the main proceedings, to whom the decision had been addressed, did in fact bring actions for the annulment of that decision, as has been recalled in paragraphs 20 to 22 of this judgment.
U ovom predmetu tužitelji u glavnom postupku, kojima je odluka upućena, ustvari su podnijeli tužbe za poništenje te odluke, kao što je to navedeno u točkama od 20. do 22. ove presude.
58 Those defendants maintain, however, that the review of legality carried out by the EU Courts under Article 263 TFEU in the sphere of competition law is insufficient because of, inter alia, the margin of discretion which those Courts allow the Commission in economic matters.
58 Međutim, spomenuti tužitelji ističu da nadzor zakonitosti koji obavljaju sudovi Unije na temelju članka 263. UFEU-a u području prava tržišnog natjecanja nije potpun zbog, između ostalog, margine prosudbe koju ti sudovi dozvoljavaju Komisiji u gospodarskom dijelu.
59 The Court of Justice has stated in this connection that, whilst, in areas giving rise to complex economic assessments, the Commission has a margin of discretion with regard to economic matters, that does not mean that the EU Courts must refrain from reviewing the Commission's interpretation of information of an economic nature.
59 Sud je u vezi s tim izjavio da iako u područjima u kojima je nužno provoditi složene gospodarske ocjene Komisija uživa diskrecijski prostor u gospodarskom dijelu, to ne znači da se sudac Unije dužan uzdržati od nadzora nad tumačenjem ekonomskih podataka od strane Komisije.
Those Courts must, among other things, not only establish whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent but also ascertain whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it (see Chalkor v Commission, paragraph 54 and case-law cited).
Naime, sudac Unije ne samo da mora provjeriti materijalnu točnost navedenih dokaznih elemenata, kao i njihovu pouzdanost i dosljednost, već i to predstavljaju li navedeni elementi skup relevantnih podataka koje treba uzeti u obzir prilikom ocjene složene situacije te jesu li oni takve naravi da podupiru zaključke koji su iz njih izvedeni (prethodno navedena presuda Chalkor/Komisija, t. 54. i navedena sudska praksa).
60 The EU Courts must also establish of their own motion that the Commission has stated reasons for its decision and, among other things, that it has explained the weighting and assessment of the factors taken into account (see, to that effect, Chalkor v Commission, paragraph 61).
60 Sud Unije također je dužan po službenoj dužnosti provjeriti je li Komisija obrazložila svoju odluku i, između ostalog, objasnila kako je odvagnula i procijenila elemente uzete u obzir (vidjeti u tom smislu prethodno navedenu presudu Chalkor/Komisija, t. 61.).
61 The EU Courts must also carry out the review of legality incumbent upon them on the basis of the evidence adduced by the applicant in support of the pleas in law put forward.
61 Na sudovima Unije je, između ostalog, da nadzor zakonitosti izvršavaju na temelju dokaza koje tužitelj iznese u prilog istaknutim tužbenim razlozima.
In carrying out such a review, the Courts cannot use the Commission's margin of discretion - either as regards the choice of factors taken into account in the application of the criteria mentioned in the Commission notice entitled `Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003' (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2) or as regards the assessment of those factors - as a basis for dispensing with the conduct of an in-depth review of the law and of the facts (Chalkor v Commission, paragraph 62).
Tijekom tog nadzora sudovi se, kako bi odustali od provođenja dubinskog pravnog i činjeničnog nadzora (presuda Chalkor/Komisija, gore navedena, točka 62.), ne mogu pozvati na diskrecijsku ovlast Komisije, ni u odnosu na izbor dokaza uzetih u obzir prilikom primjene kriterija navedenih u komunikaciji Komisije pod naslovom „Smjernice o metodi za utvrđivanje kazni koje se propisuju u skladu s člankom 23. stavkom 2. točkom (a) Uredbe br. 1/2003 (SL 2006, C 210, str. 2.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 8., svezak 4., str. 58.) ni u odnosu na ocjenu tih dokaza.
62 Finally, the review of legality is supplemented by the unlimited jurisdiction which the EU Courts were afforded by Article 17 of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959 to 1962, p. 87) and which is now recognised by Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, in accordance with Article 261 TFEU. That jurisdiction empowers the Courts, in addition to carrying out a mere review of the lawfulness of the penalty, to substitute their own appraisal for the Commission's and, consequently, to cancel, reduce or increase the fine or penalty payment imposed (Chalkor v Commission, paragraph 63 and case-law cited).
62 Na kraju, nadzor zakonitosti dopunjen je neograničenom nadležnošću koja je sudu Unije priznata člankom 17. Uredbe Vijeća br. 17 od 6. veljače 1962., koja je prva uredba o primjeni članaka 81. i 82. Ugovora (SL 1962., 13., str. 204.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 8., svezak 3., str. 3.), a danas je priznata člankom 31. Uredbe br. 1/2003 u skladu s člankom 261. UFEU-a. Ta nadležnost daje sudu ovlasti da provodi ne samo puki nadzor zakonitosti novčane kazne nego i da ocjenu Komisije zamjeni svojom ocjenom i da, posljedično, ukine, umanji ili uveća izrečenu novčanu kaznu ili periodični penal (gore navedena presuda Chalkor/Komisija, t. 63.).
63 The review provided for by the Treaties thus involves review by the EU Courts of both the law and the facts, and means that they have the power to assess the evidence, to annul the contested decision and to alter the amount of a fine.
63 Nadzor predviđen Ugovorima podrazumijeva da sudovi Unije provode pravni i činjenični nadzor i da su ovlašteni ocjenjivati dokaze, poništiti pobijanu odluku i izmijeniti iznose novčanih kazni.
The review of legality provided for in Article 263 TFEU, supplemented by the unlimited jurisdiction in respect of the amount of the fine, provided for in Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, therefore meets the requirements of the principle of effective judicial protection in Article 47 of the Charter (see, to that effect, Chalkor v Commission, paragraph 67).
Nadzor zakonitosti predviđen člankom 263. UFEU-a, dopunjen neograničenom nadležnošću u pogledu iznosa novčane kazne iz članka 31. Uredbe br. 1/2003, stoga ispunjava zahtjeve načela učinkovite sudske zaštite iz članka 47. Povelje (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Chalkor/Komisija, t. 67.).
64 As to the objection raised by the defendants in the main proceedings that the power of review is conferred on the Court of Justice, whose independence they claim is undermined on the ground that the Court is itself an EU institution, suffice it to state that it is wholly unfounded in the light of all the safeguards laid down in the Treaties, which ensure the independence and impartiality of the Court of Justice, and the fact that all judicial bodies necessarily form part of the State or supranational organisation to which they belong, a fact which on its own is not capable of entailing an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter or Article 6 of the ECHR.
64 Što se tiče prigovora koji su istaknuli tužitelji u glavnom postupku, da je ovlast nadzora dodijeljena Sudu, za čiju neovisnost oni tvrde da je dovedena u pitanje time što je i sam Sud institucija Unije, dostatno je utvrditi da je potpuno neutemeljen s obzirom na, s jedne strane, sva jamstva ugrađena u Ugovore koja osiguravaju neovisnost i nepristranost Suda i, s druge strane, činjenice da sva sudska tijela nužno čine dio državne ili nadnacionalne organizacije kojoj pripadaju, a to je činjenica koja sama po sebi ne može imati za posljedicu povredu članka 47. Povelje ni članka 6. EKLJP-a.
65 Finally, a civil action for damages, such as the action before the referring court, requires, as can be seen from the order for reference, not only that a harmful event be found to have occurred, but also that loss and a direct link between the loss and that harmful event be established.
65 Konačno, važno je napomenuti da parnični postupak za naknadu štete, kao što je onaj u glavnom postupku, podrazumijeva, kao što to proizlazi iz odluke kojom se upućuje zahtjev, ne samo utvrđenje nastanka štetnog događaja nego i postojanje štete i postojanje izravne veze između štete i štetnog događaja.
Whilst it is true that, because of its obligation not to take decisions running counter to a Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the national court is required to accept that a prohibited agreement or practice exists, the existence of loss and of a direct causal link between the loss and the agreement or practice in question remains, by contrast, a matter to be assessed by the national court.
Iako je točno da obveza nacionalnog suda da ne donosi odluke suprotne odluci Komisije o povredi članka 101. UFEU-a svakako tom sudu nameće obvezu da prihvati postojanje zabranjenog sporazuma ili zabranjene prakse, valja pojasniti da postojanje štete i postojanje izravne uzročne veze između te štete i dotičnog sporazuma ili dotične prakse ipak ocjenjuje nacionalni sud.
66 Indeed, even when the Commission has in its decision determined the precise effects of the infringement, it still falls to the national court to determine individually the loss caused to each of the persons to have brought an action for damages.
66 Doista, čak i ako je Komisija u svojoj odluci točno odredila učinke povrede, i dalje je na nacionalnom sudu da pojedinačno odredi štetu uzrokovanu svakoj od osoba koje su pokrenule tužbe za naknadu štete.
Such an assessment is not contrary to Article 16 of Regulation No 1/2003.
Takva ocjena nije u suprotnosti s člankom 16. Uredbe br. 1/2003.
67 In view of all the foregoing considerations, the Commission cannot be regarded as judge and party in its own cause in the context of a dispute such as that in the main proceedings.
67 S obzirom na sva prethodna razmatranja, u okviru spora kao što je onaj u glavnom postupku Komisiju se ne može smatrati sucem i strankom u vlastitom predmetu.
68 The referring court asks, in the second place, whether, in a civil action such as the one before it, there is a breach of the principle of equality of arms because the Commission itself conducted the investigation relating to the infringement in question.
68 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita se, kao drugo, ima li u parničnom postupku, kao što je onaj koji se vodi pred njim, povrede načela jednakosti oružja budući da je Komisija sama vodila istragu o dotičnoj povredi.
69 The defendants in the main proceedings contend that the Commission is, on that account, in a privileged position compared with them, which has enabled it to gather and use information - including information that is confidential and thus protected by business secrecy - which is not available to all the defendants.
69 Prema mišljenju tuženikâ u glavnom postupku, Komisija se zato nalazi u povlaštenom položaju u odnosu na njih, što joj je omogućilo da prikupi i upotrijebi informacije, uključujući povjerljive informacije i stoga informacije zaštićene poslovnom tajnom, koje nisu dostupne svim tuženicima.
70 The Commission's response, in the context of the present reference, is that, when preparing the action in the main proceedings, it made use only of information in the public version of the decision of 27 February 2007.
70 Komisija odgovara da je, u okviru ovog zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku, u pripremi tužbe u glavnom postupku upotrijebila samo informacije iz javno dostupne inačice odluke od 27. veljače 2007.
The Commission also explains that the departments responsible for the main proceedings, namely the Offices for `Infrastructure and Logistics' in Brussels and Luxembourg, do not have a right of privileged access to the confidential file of the Directorate-General for Competition.
Ta institucija osim toga objašnjava da službe odgovorne za glavni postupak, odnosno uredi „Infrastrukture i logistika" u Bruxellesu i u Luxembourgu nisu raspolagali povlaštenim pravom pristupa povjerljivom predmetu Glavne uprave za tržišno natjecanje.
For that reason, the Commission is, it submits, on an equal footing with every other litigant.
Komisija zato navodi da je izjednačena s drugim strankama u sporu.
71 The principle of equality of arms, which is a corollary of the very concept of a fair hearing (Joined Cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P Sweden and Others v API and Commission [2010] ECR I-8533, paragraph 88), implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case, including his evidence, under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent.
71 Načelo jednakosti oružja, kao prirodna posljedica samog pojma pravičnog postupka (presuda od 21. rujna 2010., Švedska i dr./API i Komisija, C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P i C-532/07 P, Zb., str. I-8533., t. 88.) uključuje obvezu da se svakoj stranci pruži razumna mogućnost da iznese svoje stajalište u uvjetima koji je u odnosu na protivnu stranu ne stavljaju u znatno slabiji položaj.
72 As the Advocate General has observed in point 58 of his Opinion, the aim of equality of arms is to ensure a balance between the parties to proceedings, guaranteeing that any document submitted to the court may be examined and challenged by any party to the proceedings.
72 Kako je nezavisni odvjetnik primijetio u točki 58. svojeg mišljenja, jednakost oružja ima za cilj zajamčiti ravnotežu između stranaka u postupku, tako da se osigura da svaka stranka u postupku može ispitati i osporavati svaki dokument podnesen sudu.
Conversely, the harm which a lack of balance will be likely to cause must, as a rule, be proved by the person who has suffered it.
Suprotno tome, štetu koja bi mogla nastati zbog neravnoteže u načelu mora dokazati onaj tko je trpi.
73 It emerges from the order for reference that the information to which the defendants in the main proceedings refer has not been provided to the national court by the Commission, the latter having also explained that it has relied only on the information available in the non-confidential version of the decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC.
73 No iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da informacije na koje se pozivaju tuženici u glavnom postupku sudu nije dostavila Komisija, koja je štoviše izjavila da se oslanjala samo na informacije dostupne u verziji odluke o utvrđenju povrede članka 81. UEZ-a koja nije povjerljiva.
In such circumstances a breach of the principle of equality of arms is therefore precluded.
Takve okolnosti stoga isključuju povredu načela jednakosti oružja.
74 The defendants in the main proceedings argue that the balance between the parties has been jeopardised because the Commission conducted the investigation into the infringement of Article 101 TFEU with the aim of subsequently claiming compensation for the loss sustained as a result of that infringement. That argument is belied by the prohibition, set out in Article 28(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, on using information gathered in the course of the investigation for purposes other than those of the investigation.
74 Argumentacija tužiteljâ u glavnom postupku, prema kojoj je ravnoteža između stranaka ugrožena zbog činjenice da je Komisija vodila istragu o povredi članka 101. UFEU-a s ciljem da slijedom toga zahtijeva naknadu štete pretrpljene zbog te povrede, protivna je zabrani određenoj u članku 28. stavku 1. Uredbe br. 1/2003 da se informacije sakupljene u istrazi ne smiju upotrebljavati osim u svrhu zbog koje su prikupljene.
75 Nor does the fact that both the decision of 27 February 2007 and the decision to bring the action for damages in the main proceedings were taken by the College of Commissioners call the foregoing considerations in question, since EU law contains a sufficient number of safeguards to ensure that the principle of equality of arms is observed in such an action - for example, the safeguards deriving from Article 339 TFEU, Article 28 of Regulation No 1/2003 and point 26 of the Commission Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of Articles 81 and 82 EC.
75 Isto tako okolnost da je i odluku od 27. veljače 2007. i odluku o podizanju tužbe za naknadu štete u glavnom postupku donio kolegij Komisije ne dovodi u pitanje prethodna razmatranja budući da pravo Unije sadržava dostatna jamstva kojima se osigurava poštovanje načela jednakosti oružja u okviru takve tužbe, kao što su jamstva koja proizlaze iz članaka 339. UFEU-a i 28. Uredbe br. 1/2003., kao i točke 26. komunikacije Komisije o suradnji između Komisije i nacionalnih sudova u primjeni članaka 81. i 82. Ugovora o EZ-u.
76 Finally, nor can the Court accept the arguments which the defendants in the main proceedings base on the judgment in Yvon v France, No 44962/98, ECHR 2003-V.
76 Konačno, argumenti koje tužitelji u glavnom postupku temelje na presudi Yvon/Francuska (Sud za ljudska prava, presuda od 24. travnja 2003., Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2003-V) nisu prihvatljivi.