natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
56 Furthermore, as regards the requirements concerning the provision of data which an applicant for authorisation to place a plant protection product on the market must satisfy, Article 13(6) of Directive 91/414 provides that Member States may, with due regard for the provisions of the EC Treaty, continue to apply previous national rules concerning data requirements as long as such substances are not included in Annex I to that directive.
56 Osim toga, što se tiče zahtjeva za dostavu podataka koje podnositelj zahtjeva za izdavanje odobrenja za stavljanje na tržište sredstva za zaštitu bilja mora zadovoljiti, člankom 13. stavkom 6. Direktive 91/414 predviđa se da države članice mogu, poštujući odredbe Ugovora o EZ-u, nastaviti primjenjivati prijašnja nacionalna pravila koja se odnose na zahtjeve u pogledu podataka sve dok se te tvari ne uvrste u Prilog I. toj direktivi.
57 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to Question 4 must be that Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 is to be interpreted as meaning that if a Member State authorises the placing on the market on its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not referred to in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive, it is not required to comply with the provisions of Article 4 or Article 8(3) of that directive.
57 S obzirom na sve prethodno navedeno, na četvrto pitanje treba odgovoriti da članak 8. stavak 2. Direktive 91/414 treba tumačiti tako da država članica, ako izda odobrenje za stavljanje na tržište na njezinom državnom području sredstava za zaštitu bilja koja sadrže aktivne tvari koje nisu uvrštene u Prilog I. toj direktivi i koja su već bila na tržištu dvije godine nakon datuma obavijesti o toj direktivi, ne mora poštovati odredbe članka 4. ili članka 8. stavka 3. te direktive.
58 By its second question, which must be examined next, the national court asks essentially whether, in spite of the different wording, the transitional regimes provided for in Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 and Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 have the same meaning.
58 U svojem drugom pitanju, koje valja razmotriti sljedeće, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita imaju li, unatoč drukčijem tekstu, prijelazni režimi iz članka 16. stavka 1. Direktive 98/8 i članka 8. stavka 2. Direktive 91/414 isto značenje.
59 In that regard, it should be observed first of all that, in accordance with recital 20 to Directive 98/8, close coordination should be ensured with other Community legislation and in particular with Directive 91/414.
59 U tom pogledu prvo valja primijetiti da je u skladu s dvadesetom uvodnom izjavom Direktive 98/8 potrebno osigurati detaljnu usklađenost s drugim zakonodavstvom Zajednice, a posebno s Direktivom 91/414.
60 Next, it should be recalled that the purpose of Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 and of Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 is to allow the Member States, during the transitional periods defined in those two directives, to apply existing national authorisation procedures for the placing on the market of the products covered by those directives and containing active substances which have not yet been evaluated at Community level.
60 Nadalje treba podsjetiti da članak 8. stavak 2. Direktive 91/414 i članak 16. stavak 1. Direktive 98/8 imaju za cilj državama članicama omogućiti da tijekom prijelaznih razdoblja utvrđenih u te dvije direktive primjenjuju postojeće nacionalne postupke za izdavanje odobrenja za stavljanje na tržište sredstava na koje se te dvije direktive odnose i koja sadrže aktivne tvari koje još nisu bile procijenjene na razini Zajednice.
61 Consequently, there appears to be no indication that the Community legislature’s intention was to give those provisions a different meaning.
61 Slijedom navedenoga, ništa ne upućuje na to da je namjera zakonodavca Zajednice bila da tim odredbama prida drukčije značenje.
62 That interpretation is borne out by paragraphs 43 and 44 of Monsanto, where the Court held that the transitional regime introduced by Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 corresponds to the solution adopted in Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8.
62 To tumačenje proizlazi iz točaka 43. i 44. prethodno navedene presude Monsanto, u skladu s kojima je Sud zaključio da prijelazni režim uspostavljen člankom 8. stavkom 2. Direktive 91/414 odgovara rješenju usvojenom u članku 16. stavku 1. Direktive 98/8.
63 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to Question 2 must be that Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 has the same meaning as Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414.
63 S obzirom na prethodno navedeno, na drugo pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 16. stavak 1. Direktive 98/8 ima isto značenje kao članak 8. stavak 2. Direktive 91/414.
64 By its fifth, the national court asks essentially whether by review, as referred to in Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414, it is also appropriate to understand an evaluation for the purposes of Article 25d(2) of the Bmw, an evaluation which may have the consequence that the active substance is designated for the purposes of the authorisation or registration by operation of law of the plant protection products containing it.
64 U svojem petom pitanju sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li ponovnim ocjenjivanjem u smislu članka 8. stavka 3. Direktive 91/414 isto tako smatrati i procjenu u smislu članka 25.d stavka 2. Bmw-a koja za posljedicu može imati identifikaciju aktivne tvari u svrhu izdavanja odobrenja ili registracije, na temelju samog zakona, sredstva za zaštitu bilja koja tu tvar sadrže.
65 The Stichting maintains that the designation of active substances, within the meaning of Article 25d of the Bmw, must be regarded as an authorisation within the meaning of Articles 3, 4 and 8 of Directive 91/414. The French Government submits that a review of plant protection products containing an active substance in accordance with Article 8(2) of that directive must cover not only a review of products already authorised to be placed on the market but also a review of new products not yet authorised to be placed on the market which contain an active substance already used in products already authorised under that provision. The Commission claims that, like the procedure for a review of the products provided for in Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414, the evaluation of the active substances referred to in Article 25d of the Bmw is undertaken at the initiative of the national authorities. Consequently, the Stichting, the French Government and the Commission conclude that that evaluation would be a review and should comply with the requirements of Article 8(3).
65 Stichting tvrdi da se identifikacija aktivnih tvari u smislu članka 25.d Bmw-a mora smatrati odobrenjem u smislu članaka 3., 4. i 8. Direktive 91/414. Francuska vlada smatra da pojam ponovnog ocjenjivanja sredstava za zaštitu bilja koja sadrže aktivnu tvar, u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 2. te iste direktive, mora pokrivati ne samo ponovno ocjenjivanje sredstava za koja je već bilo izdano odobrenje za stavljanje na tržište, nego i ponovno ocjenjivanje novih sredstava za koja još nije bilo izdano takvo odobrenje, a koja sadrže aktivnu tvar koja se već koristi u sredstvima za koja je na temelju te potonje odredbe već bilo izdano odobrenje. Komisija ističe da se, kao što je to slučaj s postupkom za ponovno ocjenjivanje proizvoda predviđenim u članku 8. stavku 3. Direktive 91/414, procjena aktivnih tvari iz 25.d Bmw-a provodi na inicijativu nacionalnih tijela. Stichting, francuska vlada i Komisija stoga zaključuju da ta procjena predstavlja ponovno ocjenjivanje te da treba biti u skladu sa zahtjevima iz članka 8. stavka 3.
66 3M Nederland and Others and the Netherlands Government, on the other hand, contend that Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 and Article 25d of the Bmw have different objects and different applications. They submit that Article 8 of Directive 91/414 applies only in the event of a review of the products still in possession of a valid authorisation, which is consistent with paragraph 34 of Monsanto, whereas Article 25d of the Bmw applies only to pesticides whose authorisations are about to expire. Furthermore, in the light of the differences in the definitions of the expressions ‘review’ and ‘verification’, neither the automatic extensions of the authorisations nor the evaluation of the active substances, which, under Article 25d of the Bmw, takes account of the effects on human and animal health and also on the environment, can be regarded as ‘reviews’ for the purposes of Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414.
66 Nasuprot tome, 3M Nederland i dr. i nizozemska vlada smatraju da članak 8. stavak 3. Direktive 91/414 i članak 25.d Bmw-a imaju različit predmet i područje primjene. U stvari, prvi od ta dva članka primjenjuje se samo u slučaju ponovnog ocjenjivanja proizvoda za koje je odobrenje još uvijek valjano, što je potvrđeno i točkom 34. prethodno navedene presude Monsanto, a drugi samo na pesticide čija odobrenja samo što nisu istekla. Osim toga, s obzirom na razlike između definicija termina „ponovno ocjenjivanje” i „provjera”, ni automatska produljenja odobrenja ni procjena aktivnih tvari koja na temelju članka 25.d Bmw-a uzima u obzir učinke na zdravlje ljudi i životinja, kao i na okoliš, ne može se smatrati ponovnim ocjenjivanjima u smislu članka 8. stavka 3. Direktive 91/414.
67 In that regard, it must recalled, as already held at paragraph 48 of this judgment, that a review within the meaning of Directive 91/414 presupposes that the plant protection product at issue has already been the subject of an authorisation and that that authorisation is still valid at the time when the review is carried out.
67 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da, kako je već zaključeno u točki 48. ove presude, ponovno ocjenjivanje u smislu Direktive 91/414 pretpostavlja da je za dotično sredstvo za zaštitu bilja već bilo izdano odobrenje i da je ono u trenutku ponovnog ocjenjivanja još uvijek valjano.
68 Furthermore, it is apparent upon reading Articles 4(5) and 8(3) of Directive 91/414 that the purpose of that review is not a re-evaluation of an active substance in isolation but rather a re-evaluation of the final plant protection product and that it is at the initiative of the national authorities and not at the initiative of the individuals concerned that the relevant product is reviewed.
68 Nadalje, iz čitanja članka 4. stavka 5. u vezi s člankom 8. stavkom 3. Direktive 91/414 proizlazi da predmet tog ponovnog ocjenjivanja nije ponovna ocjena izolirane aktivne tvari, nego konačnog sredstva za zaštitu bilja, kao i da se to ponovno ocjenjivanje provodi na inicijativu nacionalnih tijela, a ne zainteresiranih pojedinaca.
69 The answer to Question 5 is therefore that it is for the national court to assess whether the evaluation provided for in Article 25d(2) of the Bmw corresponds to all the characteristics of a ‘review’ within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 and, in particular, to those set out at paragraphs 67 and 68 of this judgment.
69 Stoga na peto pitanje valja odgovoriti da je na sudu koji je uputio zahtjev da prosudi ima li procjena iz članka 25.d stavka 2. Bmw-a sve značajke „ponovnog ocjenjivanja” u smislu članka 8. stavka 3. Direktive 91/414 te osobito one navedene u točkama 67. i 68. ove presude.
Question 6
Šesto pitanje
70 By its sixth question, the national court asks whether Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 contains only provisions concerning the communication of data prior to a review or whether it must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions which it lays down also have an impact on the way in which a review must be organised and carried out.
70 U svojem šestom pitanju sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita sadržava li članak 8. stavak 3. Direktive 91/414 samo odredbe koje se odnose na priopćavanje podataka prije ponovne ocjene ili ga treba tumačiti tako da u njemu propisani uvjeti utječu i na način na koji ponovno ocjenjivanje treba organizirati i provesti.
71 In that regard, it has already been observed at paragraph 47 of this judgment that, in accordance with Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414, the Member States apply the requirements laid down in Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v), and (c) to (f), of that directive when they ‘review plant protection products containing an active substance’ not referred to in Annex I of that directive which is already on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive and before such review has taken place. Furthermore, it is apparent upon reading Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 that the Member States apply those requirements in accordance with national provisions concerning the data to be provided.
71 U tom pogledu već je napomenuto u točki 47. ove presude da u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 3. Direktive 91/414 države članice primjenjuju zahtjeve predviđene člankom 4. stavkom 1. točkom (b) podtočkama od i. do v. i točkama od (c) do (f) navedene direktive kada „ponovno ocjenjuju sredstva za zaštitu bilja koja sadrže aktivnu tvar” koja nije uvrštena u Prilog I. toj direktive i koja je već na tržištu dvije godine nakon datuma obavijesti o toj direktivi te prije nego što se takvo ponovno ocjenjivanje provede. Osim toga, iz teksta članka 8. stavka 3. Direktive 91/414 proizlazi da države članice primjenjuju te zahtjeve u skladu s nacionalnim odredbama o podacima koje treba dostaviti.
72 The requirements laid down in Article 4(1)(b) to (e) of Directive 91/414 relate to the safety and effectiveness of plant protection products. Article 4(1)(f) of that directive requires that Member States establish maximum residue levels and notify them to the Commission for approval. It is against the yardstick of those criteria that the Member States decide to review plant protection products (see, to that effect, Monsanto, paragraph 39).
72 Zahtjevi utvrđeni u članku 4. stavku 1. točkama od (b) do (e) Direktive 91/414 odnose se na sigurnost i učinkovitost sredstava za zaštitu bilja. Prema članku 4. stavku 1. točki (f) te direktive države članice moraju odrediti maksimalne razine ostataka i o tome radi odobrenja službeno obavijestiti Komisiju. Upravo s obzirom na te kriterije države članice odlučuju hoće li ponovno ocjenjivati sredstva za zaštitu bilja (vidjeti u tom smislu prethodno navedenu presudu Monsanto, t. 39.).
73 It should further be stated, as the Advocate General observed at point 88 of his Opinion, that Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 contains no rule governing the way in which the review is organised and carried out.
73 Osim toga, valja ustvrditi, kako je to u točki 88. svojeg mišljenja primijetio nezavisni odvjetnik, da članak 8. stavak 3. Direktive 91/414 ne sadržava nikakvo pravilo u pogledu organizacije i provedbe ponovnog ocjenjivanja.
74 In those circumstances, the answer to Question 6 must be that Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 is to be interpreted as meaning that it contains only provisions relating to the supply of data prior to a review.
74 U tim okolnostima na šesto pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 8. stavak 3. Direktive 91/414 treba tumačiti tako da sadržava samo odredbe koje se odnose na dostavu podataka prije ponovnog ocjenjivanja.
75 By its first question, which is divided into two parts, the national court asks essentially whether Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 91/414 and Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 have direct effect after expiry of the periods prescribed for transposing those directives into domestic law.
75 Svojim prvim pitanjem, koje je podijeljeno na dva dijela, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita imaju li članak 8. stavci 2. i 3. Direktive 91/414 i članak 16. stavak 1. Direktive 98/8 izravan učinak nakon isteka rokova za prenošenje navedenih direktiva u unutarnje pravo.
76 In the light of the answers given to the other questions, there is no need to answer Question 1.
76 S obzirom na odgovore na ostala pitanja, nije potrebno odgovoriti na prvo pitanje.
77 According to settled case-law, the Member States’ obligation arising from a directive to achieve the result envisage by the directive and their duty under Article 10 EC to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the fulfilment of that obligation, is binding on all the authorities of Member States including, for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts (see, in particular, Case 14/83 Von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR 1891, paragraph 26, and Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8).
77 U skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom, obveza država članica koja proizlazi iz direktive, da ostvare njome propisani rezultat i njihova obveza, na temelju članka 10. UEZ-a, da poduzmu sve opće ili pojedinačne mjere potrebne da se osigura ispunjenje te obveze, odnosi se na sva tijela država članica uključujući i na sudove u okviru njihovih nadležnosti (osobito vidjeti presude od 10. travnja 1984., Von Colson et Kamann, 14/83, Zb., str. 1891., t. 26., i od 13. studenoga 1990., Marleasing, C-106/89, Zb., str. I.-4135., t. 8.).
78 Thus, when it applies domestic law, and in particular legislative provisions specifically adopted for the purpose of implementing the requirements of a directive, the national court is bound to interpret national law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive concerned in order to achieve the result sought by the directive and consequently comply with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC (see to that effect, inter alia, Von Colson and Kamann, paragraph 26, and Marleasing, paragraph 8).
78 Stoga, kada primjenjuje unutarnje pravo i osobito, kao što je u ovom slučaju riječ, odredbe propisa donesenog posebno s ciljem provedbe zahtjeva direktive, nacionalni sud obvezan je nacionalno pravo tumačiti, u mjeri u kojoj je to moguće, s obzirom na tekst i svrhu te direktive kako bi ostvario njome propisani rezultat i posljedično postupio u skladu s člankom 249. stavkom 3. UEZ-a (vidjeti u tom smislu osobito prethodno navedene presude Von Colson et Kamann, t. 26., i Marleasing, t. 8.).
1. Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market must be interpreted as meaning that it does not constitute a ‘standstill’ obligation. However, the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, and Directive 98/8, require that during the transitional period prescribed in Article 16(1) of that directive the Member States refrain from adopting any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by that directive.
1. Članak 16. stavak 1. Direktive 98/8/EZ Europskoga parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. veljače 1998. o stavljanju biocidnih pripravaka na tržište treba tumačiti tako da ne predstavlja obvezu „standstill”. Međutim, prema drugom stavku članka 10. UEZ-a i trećem stavku članka 249. UEZ-a, kao i prema Direktivi 98/8, tijekom prijelaznog razdoblja iz članka 16. stavka 1. navedene direktive države članice moraju se suzdržati od donošenja bilo koje odredbe koja bi mogla ozbiljno ugroziti ostvarenje rezultata propisanog tom direktivom .
2. Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market is to be interpreted as meaning that if a Member State authorises the placing on the market on its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not referred to in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive, it is not required to comply with the provisions of Article 4 or Article 8(3) of that directive.
2. Članak 8. stavak 2. Direktive 91/414 od 15. srpnja 1991. o stavljanju sredstava za zaštitu bilja na tržište treba tumačiti tako da država članica, ako izda odobrenje za stavljanje na tržište na njezinom državnom području sredstava za zaštitu bilja koja sadrže aktivne tvari koje nisu uvrštene u Prilog I. toj direktivi i koje su već bile dostupne na tržištu dvije godine nakon datuma obavijesti o toj direktivi, nije dužna poštovati odredbe članka 4. ili članka 8. stavka 3. te direktive.
3. Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 has the same meaning as Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414.
3. Članak 16. stavak 1. Direktive 98/8 ima isto značenje kao članak 8. stavak 2. Direktive 91/414.
4. It is for the national court to assess whether the evaluation provided for in Article 25d(2) of the Law on pesticides of 1962 (Bestrijdingsmiddelenwet) corresponds to all the characteristics of a ‘review’ within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414.
4. Sud koji je uputio zahtjev dužan je prosuditi ima li procjena iz članka 25.d stavka 2. Zakona o pesticidima iz 1962. (Bestrijdingsmiddelenwet) sve značajke ponovnog ocjenjivanja u smislu članka 8. stavka 3. Direktive 91/414.
5. Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 must be interpreted as meaning that it contains only provisions relating to the provision of data prior to a review.
5. Članak 8. stavak 3. Direktive 91/414 treba tumačiti tako da sadržava samo odredbe koje se odnose na dostavu podataka prije ponovnog ocjenjivanja.
6. There is no need to answer Question 1.
6. Na prvo pitanje nije potrebno odgovoriti.
* Language of the case: Dutch.
Jezik postupka: nizozemski.
10 January 2006 (*)
10. siječnja 2006.(*)
(Carriage by air – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 5, 6 and 7 –Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Validity – Interpretation of Article 234 EC)
„Zračni prijevoz – Uredba (EZ) br. 261/2004 – Članci 5., 6. i 7. – Odšteta i pomoć putnicima u slučaju uskraćenog ukrcaja i otkazivanja ili dužeg kašnjenja leta – Valjanost – Tumačenje članka 234. UEZ-a”
In Case C-344/04,
U predmetu C-344/04,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), made by decision of 14 July 2004, received at the Court on 12 August 2004, in the proceedings
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (Upravni sud) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina), odlukom od 14. srpnja 2004., koju je Sud zaprimio 12. kolovoza 2004., u postupku
European Low Fares Airline Association
European Low Fares Airline Association protiv
v Department for Transport,
Department for Transport,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 7 June 2005,
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 7. lipnja 2005.,
– the International Air Transport Association, by M. Brealey QC and M. Demetriou, Barrister, instructed by J. Balfour, Solicitor,
– za International Air Transport Association, M. Brealey, QC, i M. Demetriou, barrister, koje je ovlastio J. Balfour, solicitor,
– the European Low Fares Airline Association, by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and C. Garcia Molyneux, abogado,
– za European Low Fares Airline Association, G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, i C. Garcia Molyneux, abogado,
– the United Kingdom Government, by M. Bethell, acting as Agent, and C. Lewis, Barrister,
– za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine, J. Beeko, u svojstvu agenta, i C. Lewis, barrister,
– the European Parliament, by K. Bradley and M. Gómez Leal, acting as Agents,
– za Europski parlament, K. Bradley i M. Gómez Leal, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Council of the European Union, by E. Karlsson, K. Michoel and R. Szostak, acting as Agents,
– za Vijeće Europske unije, E. Karlsson, K. Michoel i R. Szostak, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Commission of the European Communities, by F. Benyon and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents,
– za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, F. Benyon i M. Huttunen, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 8 September 2005,
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 8. rujna 2005.,