natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
29 According to settled case-law, in giving the Council the task of adopting a common transport policy, the Treaty confers wide legislative powers on it as regards the adoption of appropriate common rules (Case 97/78 Schumalla [1978] ECR 2311, paragraph 4, and Joined Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 SAM Schiffahrt and Stapf [1997] ECR I-4475, paragraph 23).
29 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, Ugovor povjerava Vijeću, dajući mu zadatak donošenja zajedničke prometne politike, široke zakonodavne ovlasti u odnosu na donošenje odgovarajućih zajedničkih pravila (presude od 28. studenoga 1978., Schumalla, 97/78, Zb., str. 2311., t. 4., te od 17. srpnja 1997., SAM Schiffahrt i Stapf, C-248/95 i C-249/95, Zb., str. I-4475., t. 23.).
30 It is also apparent from the clear wording of Article 71(1)(c) EC and from the explanations given by the Court on the concept of `other appropriate measures' in Article 71(1)(d) EC (Schumalla¸ paragraph 6) that, on the basis of Article 71 EC, the Community legislature is entitled, as the Republic of Finland moreover acknowledges, to adopt common provisions to improve road safety and eliminate national disparities liable to cause substantial distortion to conditions of competition in the transport sector.
30 Iz teksta članka 71. stavka 1. točke (c) UEZ-a i pojašnjenja Suda o pojmu „druge odgovarajuće odredbe" u članku 71. stavku 1. točki (d) UEZ-a (prethodno navedena presuda Schumalla¸ t. 6.) jasno proizlazi da je na temelju članka 71. UEZ-a zakonodavac Zajednice ovlašten, kao što Republika Finska osim toga i priznaje, donositi zajedničke odredbe za poboljšanje sigurnosti na cestama i uklanjanje nacionalnih nejednakosti koje mogu dovesti do znatnog narušavanja uvjeta tržišnog natjecanja u prometnom sektoru.
31 The Republic of Finland objects, however, that the provisions of the contested directive concerning self-employed drivers, contrary to what is stated in Article 1 of the directive, do not contribute to the objectives of road safety and alignment of conditions of competition covered by Article 71 EC.
31 Republika Finska, međutim, prigovara da odredbe pobijane direktive koje se odnose na samozaposlene vozače, protivno navedenom u njezinom članku 1., ne doprinose ciljevima sigurnosti na cestama i usklađivanju uvjeta tržišnog natjecanja obuhvaćenih člankom 71. UEZ-a.
32 The merits of that argument must be examined.
32 Osnovanost toga argumenta valja ispitati.
33 With respect, first, to the objective of road safety, Article 3(a)(2) of the contested directive defines the periods of occupational activity to be regarded as working time in the case of self-employed drivers.
33 Prvo, u odnosu na cilj sigurnosti prometa na cestama, članak 3. stavak (a) točka 2. pobijane direktive definira da u slučaju samozaposlenih vozača razdoblja obavljanja profesionalne djelatnosti treba smatrati radnim vremenom.
Taken together with the provisions of Article 4 of that directive on maximum weekly working time, that definition places a ceiling on the number of hours a self-employed driver may devote each week to activities directly linked to road transport.
Promatrana zajedno s odredbama članka 4. te direktive o maksimalnom tjednom radnom vremenu, ta definicija postavlja gornju granicu sati koje samozaposleni vozač može svakoga tjedna posvetiti aktivnostima izravno povezanima s cestovnim prijevozom.
In order to ensure compliance with that weekly limit, Article 9 of the contested directive requires a record of working time to be kept.
Kako bi se osiguralo pridržavanje te tjedne gornje granice, članak 9. pobijane direktive zahtijeva vođenje evidencije radnog vremena.
Article 5 of the directive fixes, moreover, for self-employed drivers too, the frequency and minimum length of breaks.
Povrh toga, članak 5. direktive utvrđuje, osobito za samozaposlene vozače, i učestalost te minimalno trajanje stanki.
34 The measures set out in the preceding paragraph aim to confine within reasonable limits the weekly rhythm of work of a self-employed driver, as regards activities that may have a bearing on his driving because of their effect on his state of tiredness, and to impose on him minimum periods of rest.
34 Mjere navedene u prethodnoj točki imaju za cilj razumno ograničiti tjedni radni ritam samozaposlenog vozača, u odnosu na aktivnosti koje zbog svojeg učinka na njegov umor mogu utjecati na njegovu vožnju, te mu nametnuti minimalna razdoblja odmora.
They thus undeniably aim to improve road safety, which, contrary to the assertions of the Republic of Finland, is liable to be jeopardised not only by periods of driving which are too long but also by an excessive accumulation of activities other than driving, such as those listed in points (ii) to (v) of the first indent of Article 3(a)(1) of the contested directive, which are directly linked to a road transport operation (see, to that effect, Case C-394/92 Michielsen and GTS [1994] ECR I-2497, paragraph 14, and Case C-297/99 Skills Motor Coaches and Others [2001] ECR I-573, paragraphs 24 and 25).
One, dakle, nedvojbeno za cilj imaju poboljšanje sigurnosti na cestama koja, protivno tvrdnjama Republike Finske, može biti ugrožena ne samo predugim razdobljima vožnje, već i pretjeranim brojem aktivnosti koje nisu vožnja, kao što su one navedene u točkama (ii) do (v) prve alineje članka 3. stavka (a) točke 1. pobijane direktive, a koje su izravno povezane s obavljanjem cestovnog prijevoza (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 9. lipnja 1994., Michielsen i GTS, C-394/92, Zb., str. I-2497., t. 14., te od 18. siječnja 2001., Skills Motor Coaches i drugi, C-297/99, Zb., str. I-573., t. 24. i 25.).
35 The contested directive also envisages, in Article 7, that self-employed drivers are to be subject to the restrictions it lays down concerning the length of night work.
35 Pobijana direktiva u članku 7. također predviđa da samozaposleni vozači trebaju podlijegati ograničenjima koja ona utvrđuje u odnosu na duljinu noćnog rada.
In view of the particular effects which night work is liable to have on the human body, the state of tiredness of the road transport worker, and hence his driving, such a measure also aims to improve road safety.
S obzirom na posebne učinke koje noćni rad može imati na ljudsko tijelo, na umor radnika u cestovnom prijevozu, pa tako i na njegovu vožnju, takva mjera također je usmjerena na poboljšanje sigurnosti na cestama.
36 It must therefore be considered that the regulation of the working time of self-employed drivers envisaged by the contested directive pursues an objective of road safety.
36 Stoga valja smatrati da je uređenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača predviđeno pobijanom direktivom usmjereno ka cilju sigurnosti na cestama.
As the Parliament and the Commission rightly observe, that regulation is a useful supplement to the provisions of Regulation No 3820/85, which concern only one of the factors compromising road safety, namely the performance by the road transport worker of excessively long periods of driving.
Kao što Parlament i Komisija ispravno naglašavaju, to je uređenje korisna nadopuna odredbama Uredbe br. 3820/85, koje se odnose na samo jedan od čimbenika ugrožavanja sigurnosti na cestama, a to su preduga razdoblja koja radnik u cestovnom prijevozu provede vozeći.
37 The above analysis cannot be called into question by the circumstance adduced by the Kingdom of Spain that the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the contested directive provides that, with a view to fixing the definitive status of self-employed drivers with respect to the directive, the Commission is to present a report to the Parliament and the Council by 23 March 2007 at the latest concerning in particular the consequences for road safety of the current exclusion of self-employed drivers from the scope of that directive.
37 Gornja se analiza ne može dovesti u pitanje okolnošću, na koju se poziva Kraljevina Španjolska, da treći podstavak članka 2. stavka 1. pobijane direktive predviđa da Komisija s ciljem utvrđivanja definitivnog statusa samozaposlenih vozača u odnosu na tu direktivu treba Parlamentu i Vijeću najkasnije do 23. ožujka 2007. podnijeti izvješće povezano posebice s posljedicama koje na sigurnost na cestama ima sadašnje isključenje samozaposlenih vozača iz područja primjene te direktive.
38 As the Parliament stated in its pleadings, and as was confirmed at the hearing by the various institutions, that provision is the result of a compromise in the Council on the Commission's proposal under which those drivers were to be subjected immediately to the contested directive `for reasons mainly associated with road safety' (see points 4 and 5 of the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council of 21 June 2000 entitled `Towards a safer and more competitive high-quality road transport system in the Community', COM(2000) 364 final).
38 Kao što je Parlament naveo u svojim podnescima, te kao što su razne institucije potvrdile na raspravi, ta je odredba rezultat kompromisa u Vijeću u odnosu na prijedlog Komisije da „zbog razloga uglavnom povezanih sa sigurnošću na cestama" ti vozači odmah budu obuhvaćeni pobijanom direktivom (vidjeti točke 4. i 5. Komunikacije Komisije Europskom parlamentu i Vijeću od 21. lipnja 2000. naslovljene „Prema sigurnijem i konkurentnijem visoko kvalitetnom sustavu cestovnog prijevoza u Zajednici", COM (2000) 364 final).
It is not capable of rendering unfounded the considerations relating to the effects of performing excessively long periods of road transport activities and of night work on the driver's state of tiredness and hence on his driving.
Ona ne može poljuljati osnovanost razmatranja o učincima predugih razdoblja obavljanja aktivnosti cestovnog prijevoza i noćnog rada na umor vozača, pa tako i na njegovu vožnju.
Consequently, it is not capable of invalidating the conclusion that the objective of road safety fully justifies the regulation of the working time of self-employed drivers envisaged by the contested directive.
Posljedično, zbog nje se ne može odustati od zaključka da cilj sigurnosti na cestama u potpunosti opravdava uređenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača predviđeno pobijanom direktivom.
39 With respect, next, to the objective of aligning conditions of competition, the provisions of the contested directive set out in paragraphs 33 and 35 above are intended to coordinate national laws on essential aspects of the time spent by self-employed drivers on their road transport activities.
39 Zatim, u odnosu na cilj usklađivanja uvjeta tržišnog natjecanja, odredbe pobijane direktive navedene u točkama 33. i 35. ove presude namijenjene su koordinaciji nacionalnih zakonodavstava u odnosu na ključne aspekte vremena koje samozaposleni vozači provode obavljajući djelatnost cestovnog prijevoza.
They contribute on that basis to the elimination in those respects of disparities between Member States liable to distort competition in the trade of self-employed carrier by road.
U tom smislu one doprinose uklanjanju nejednakosti među državama članicama koje mogu narušiti tržišno natjecanje u djelatnosti samozaposlenog cestovnog prijevoznika.
40 Moreover, it has been held that common provisions which, like those set out in paragraphs 33 and 35 above, aim to improve road safety cannot but contribute to the elimination of disparities liable to cause substantial distortion to conditions of competition in the transport sector and thus prove `appropriate' within the meaning of Article 71(1)(d) EC for establishing a common transport policy (see Schumalla, paragraph 6).
40 Povrh toga, smatralo se da zajedničke odredbe koje, poput onih navedenih u točkama 33. i 35. ove presude imaju za cilj poboljšanje sigurnosti na cestama, ne mogu a da ne doprinesu uklanjanju nejednakosti koje mogu dovesti do znatnog narušavanja uvjeta tržišnog natjecanja u prometnom sektoru i tako se pokažu „odgovarajućima" u smislu članka 71. stavka 1. točke (d) UEZ-a za ostvarenje zajedničke prometne politike (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu Schumalla, t. 6.).
41 In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the regulation of the working time of self-employed drivers envisaged by the contested directive is such as to contribute to realising the objectives of road safety and alignment of conditions of competition set out in Article 1 of that directive.
41 U svjetlu prethodno navedenoga, valja zaključiti da je uređenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača predviđeno pobijanom direktivom takvo da doprinosi ostvarenju ciljeva sigurnosti na cestama i usklađivanja uvjeta tržišnog natjecanja utvrđenih u članku 1. te direktive.
It follows that Article 71 EC offers a legal basis which is appropriate and sufficient for the application of the contested directive to that category of carriers by road.
Iz toga slijedi da članak 71. UEZ-a nudi pravnu osnovu koja je odgovarajuća i dostatna za primjenu pobijane direktive na tu kategoriju cestovnih prijevoznika.
42 With respect to Article 137(2) EC, it must be observed that the legislative procedure provided for in that provision for the adoption of measures for the improvement of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety is the same as that provided for in Article 71 EC.
42 U odnosu na članak 137. stavak 2. UEZ-a, valja primijetiti da je zakonodavni postupak koji ta odredba predviđa za donošenje mjera za poboljšanje radne okoline radi zaštite zdravlja i sigurnosti radnika jednak onome koji je predviđen u članku 71. UEZ-a.
43 Having recourse to Article 137(2) EC as a secondary legal basis of the contested directive thus, in any event, had no effect on the procedure followed for its adoption.
43 Dakle, pozivanje na članak 137. stavak 2. UEZ-a kao sekundarnu pravnu osnovu pobijane direktive u svakom slučaju nije utjecalo na postupak koji je primijenjen za njezino donošenje.
44 In those circumstances, there is no need to rule on whether Article 137(2) EC also provides an appropriate legal basis for the measures envisaged by the contested directive as regards self-employed drivers (see also Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, paragraph 98, and, a contrario, Case C-300/89 Commission v Council (`Titanium dioxide') [1991] ECR I-2867, paragraphs 18 to 21).
44 U tim okolnostima nema potrebe odlučivati o tome pruža li i članak 137. stavak 2. prikladnu pravnu osnovu za mjere predviđene pobijanom direktivom u odnosu na samozaposlene vozače (vidjeti također presudu od 10. prosinca 2002., British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, C-491/01, Zb., str. I-11453., t. 98., i, a contrario, presudu od 11. lipnja 1991., Komisija/Vijeće, tzv. „Titanijev dioksid", C-300/89, Zb., str. I-2867., t. 18. do 21.).
45 This plea in law must accordingly be rejected.
45 S obzirom na prethodno navedeno, ovaj tužbeni razlog valja odbiti.
Pleas of infringement of the freedom to pursue an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business, breach of the principle of proportionality, and the fact that the subject of the contested directive is not road safety
Tužbeni razlozi vezani uz povredu slobode obavljanja zanimanja i slobode poduzetništva, povredu načela proporcionalnosti i činjenicu da predmet pobijane direktive nije sigurnost na cestama
46 The Kingdom of Spain submits, first, that the inclusion of self-employed drivers in the scope of the contested directive has the effect of preventing self-employed carriers by road from devoting all their time and effort to the prosperity of their undertaking and constitutes an impermissible infringement of their freedom to pursue an occupation and their freedom to conduct a business.
46 Kraljevina Španjolska s jedne strane tvrdi da uključivanje samozaposlenih vozača u područje primjene pobijane direktive ima učinak sprečavanja samozaposlenih cestovnih prijevoznika da sve svoje vrijeme i napore posvete napretku svoga poslovanja, te predstavlja nedopustivo zadiranje u njihovu slobodu obavljanja zanimanja i slobodu poduzetništva.
47 The Kingdom of Spain submits, second, that, contrary to what is said in the fourth and tenth recitals in the preamble to and in Article 1 of the contested directive, the objective of road safety cannot be achieved by that directive, which is social legislation whose sole object is to improve the living and working conditions of road transport workers.
47 S druge strane, Kraljevina Španjolska tvrdi da protivno onome što navode četvrta i deseta uvodna izjava te članak 1. pobijane direktive, cilj sigurnosti na cestama ne može biti ostvaren tom direktivom koja pripada socijalnom zakonodavstvu i čiji je isključivi cilj unapređenje uvjeta života i rada radnika u cestovnom prijevozu.
It submits that while there is indeed justification for regulating the working time of employees, in view of their subordinate position as regards their employer, no such need for protection exists for self-employed workers, who must remain free to organise their activities as they wish.
Ona tvrdi da, iako doista postoji opravdanje za uređenje radnog vremena zaposlenika s obzirom na njihov podređeni položaj u odnosu na njihove poslodavce, takva potreba za zaštitom ne postoji kod samozaposlenih radnika kojima se mora ostaviti sloboda da svoju djelatnost organiziraju kako žele.
48 The Republic of Finland submits, first, that the inclusion of self-employed drivers in the scope of the contested directive constitutes a breach of the principle of proportionality.
48 Prvo, Republika Finska tvrdi da uključivanje samozaposlenih vozača u područje primjene pobijane direktive predstavlja povredu načela proporcionalnosti.
It submits that the objective of protection of persons is no justification for regulating the working time of those drivers; that the objective of road safety is already taken into consideration by Regulation No 3820/85 and would be served just as effectively and with less interference with the freedom to pursue an occupation by stricter supervision of compliance with that regulation; and that the contested directive does not specify to what extent it could contribute to realising the objective of aligning conditions of competition.
Ona prvenstveno tvrdi da cilj zaštite osoba nije opravdanje za uređivanje radnog vremena tih vozača; drugo, da je cilj sigurnosti na cestama već uzet u obzir u Uredbi 3820/85 te da bi bio ostvaren jednako učinkovito i s manje zadiranja u slobodu obavljanja zanimanja da se strože nadgleda pridržavanje toga uređenja te, treće, da ta direktiva ne navodi u kojoj bi mjeri mogla doprinijeti ostvarenju cilja usklađivanja uvjeta tržišnog natjecanja.
49 The Republic of Finland argues, second, that the subjection of self-employed drivers to the contested directive breaches the principle of the freedom to pursue an occupation, under which an operator must be able to decide freely on the amount and the organisation of the working time he intends to devote to his business activities.
49 S druge strane, Republika Finska tvrdi da podvrgavanje samozaposlenih vozača pobijanoj direktivi krši načelo slobode obavljanja zanimanja, prema kojemu poduzetnik mora moći slobodno odlučiti o važnosti i organizaciji radnog vremena koje namjerava posvetiti svojoj poslovnoj djelatnosti.
It asserts that, as regards self-employed drivers, the directive regulates a number of activities other than driving and requires them to keep a record of working time, which constitutes an impermissible interference with their right to organise their activities freely.
Ona tvrdi da u odnosu na samozaposlene vozače direktiva uređuje niz aktivnosti koje nisu vožnja te od njih zahtijeva vođenje evidencije radnog vremena, što predstavlja nedopustivo zadiranje u njihovo pravo da slobodno organiziraju svoje djelatnosti.
50 It should be pointed out, as a preliminary point, that at the hearing the Kingdom of Spain explained that its plea, referred to in paragraph 47 above, that the contested directive does not have road safety as its object is directed against that directive's disproportionate interference with the freedom self-employed drivers must enjoy in the organisation of their occupational activities.
50 Najprije valja naglasiti da je na raspravi Kraljevina Španjolska pojasnila da je njezin tužbeni razlog, spomenut prethodno u točki 47., da cilj pobijane direktive nije sigurnost na cestama, usmjeren protiv nerazmjernog zadiranja te direktive u slobodu koju samozaposleni vozači moraju imati u organizaciji svoje profesionalne djelatnosti.
That plea thus merges with the Kingdom of Spain's plea of breach of the freedom to pursue an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business.
Taj se tužbeni razlog stoga objedinjuje s tužbenim razlogom Kraljevine Španjolske o povredi slobode obavljanja zanimanja i slobode poduzetništva.
51 Freedom to pursue an occupation is one of the general principles of Community law (Case C-177/90 Kühn [1992] ECR I-35, paragraph 16; Case C-280/93 Germany v Council [1994] ECR I-4973, paragraph 78; and SAM Schiffahrt and Stapf, paragraph 72).
51 Sloboda obavljanja zanimanja jedno je od općih načela prava Zajednice (presude od 10. siječnja 1992., Kühn, C-177/90, Zb., str. I-35., t. 16.; od 5. listopada 1994., Njemačka/Vijeće, C-280/93, Zb., str. I-4973., t. 78.; kao i prethodno navedena presuda SAM Schiffahrt i Stapf, t. 72.).
The same is true of freedom to conduct a business, which coincides with freedom to pursue an occupation (Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest [1991] ECR I-415, paragraphs 72 to 77).
Isto vrijedi i za slobodu poduzetništva, koja se stapa sa slobodom obavljanja zanimanja (presuda od 21. veljače 1991., Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen i Zuckerfabrik Soest, C-143/88 i C-92/89, Zb., str. I-415., t. 72. do 77.).
52 Those freedoms are not absolute rights, however, but must be considered in relation to their social function.
52 Te slobode ipak nisu apsolutna prava, no mora ih se promatrati u odnosu na njihovu socijalnu funkciju.
Consequently, restrictions may be imposed on their exercise, provided that the restrictions correspond to objectives of general interest and do not constitute in relation to the aim pursued a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the rights guaranteed (see inter alia Case C-200/96 Metronome Musik [1998] ECR I-1953, paragraph 21).
Shodno tome, moguće je nametnuti ograničenja na njihovo ostvarenje, pod uvjetom da ta ograničenja zaista odgovaraju ciljevima od općeg interesa i da, s obzirom na željeni cilj, ne predstavljaju nerazmjeran i neprihvatljiv zahvat kojim se povređuje sama bit tako zajamčenih prava (vidjeti, među ostalim, presudu od 28. travnja 1998., Metronome Musik, C-200/96, Zb., str. I-1953., t. 21.).
53 In the present case, the regulation of the working time of self-employed drivers envisaged by the contested directive is intended to improve road safety (see paragraphs 33 to 36 above) and consequently corresponds to an objective of general interest (see Case C-55/93 Van Schaik [1994] ECR I-4837, paragraph 19, and Case C-314/98 Snellers [2000] ECR I-8633, paragraph 55).
53 U ovom predmetu uređenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača predviđeno pobijanom direktivom namijenjeno je poboljšanju sigurnosti na cestama (vidjeti prethodno navedene točke 33. do 36.), te posljedično odgovara cilju od općeg interesa (vidjeti presude od 5. listopada 1994., Van Schaik, C-55/93, Zb., str. I-4837., t. 19., i od 12. listopada 2000., Snellers, C-314/98, Zb., str. I-8633., t. 55.).
54 As the Advocate General observes in paragraphs 112 to 116 of her Opinion, while that regulation does interfere with the way in which the occupation of self-employed driver is pursued, it does not affect the very existence of the freedom to pursue that occupation.
54 Kao što nezavisni odvjetnik primjećuje u točkama 112. do 116. svojega mišljenja, iako to uređenje utječe na način na koji se obavlja zanimanje samozaposlenog vozača, ono ne utječe na samo postojanje slobode obavljanja tog zanimanja.