natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
55 Consequently, having regard to the health risks and the risks of damage to vehicle engines and to the difficulties in developing test methodologies, a restrictive measure such as a limitation on the presence of MMT in fuels does not go beyond what is necessary to meet the objectives of Directive 2009/30.
55 Slijedom navedenog, s obzirom na rizike za zdravlje i rizike od oštećenja motora u vozilima i na poteškoće u razvoju metodologija ispitivanja, ograničenje prisutnosti MMT-a u gorivima kao mjera ograničavanja ne prekoračuje ono što je potrebno za ispunjavanje ciljeva Direktive 2009/30.
56 Moreover, it is necessary to ascertain whether, in exercising its discretion, the European Union legislature attempted to achieve a degree of balance between, on the one hand, the protection of health, environmental protection and consumer protection and, on the other hand, the economic interests of traders, while pursuing the objective assigned to it by the Treaty to ensure a high level of protection of health and environmental protection.
56 Osim toga, važno je utvrditi je li, u izvršavanju svoje diskrecijske ovlasti, zakonodavac Unije, nastojeći ispuniti cilj koji mu je dodijeljen Ugovorom, tj. osigurati visoku razinu zaštite i zaštitu okoliša, pokušao postići stupanj uravnoteženosti između, s jedne strane, zaštite zdravlja, zaštite okoliša i zaštite potrošača i, s druge strane, ekonomskih interesa gospodarskih subjekata.
57 First, it must be borne in mind that the Commission’s impact assessment was not binding on either the Parliament or the Council.
57 Kao prvo, valja podsjetiti na to da procjena utjecaja koju je provela Komisija nije bila obvezujuća ni za Parlament ni za Vijeće.
58 In that regard, it is clear from the scientific documents and from the debate between the parties that, when Directive 2009/30 was adopted, no public body or independent entity had undertaken a scientific assessment of the effects of MMT on health. As regards the studies provided by professionals in the sector, it is clear that the widely disparate conclusions reached on that subject are dependent on whether the study relied on was carried out by the motor car industry or by the producers of MMT.
58 U tom pogledu, iz znanstvenih dokumenata i rasprave vođene između stranaka proizlazi da u vrijeme donošenja Direktive 2009/30 nijedno javno tijelo ni neovisni subjekt nisu poduzeli znanstvenu procjenu utjecaja MMT-a na zdravlje. Kada se radi o studijama koje su isporučili stručnjaci u tom sektoru, valja utvrditi da se zaključci studija po tom pitanju međusobno jako razlikuju s obzirom na to je li studiju na koju se pozivaju izradila automobilska industrija ili su je izradili proizvođači MMT-a.
59 It follows that the European Union legislature was faced with serious doubts, in the absence of adequate and reliable scientific data, as to whether MMT was harmless for health and the environment.
59 Iz toga slijedi da je u nedostatku prikladnih i pouzdanih znanstvenih podataka zakonodavac Unije bio suočen s ozbiljnim sumnjama u to da MMT nije štetan za zdravlje i za okoliš.
60 A correct application of the precautionary principle presupposes, first, identification of the potentially negative consequences for health of the proposed use of MMT, and, secondly, a comprehensive assessment of the risk to health based on the most reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of international research (see Case C-333/08 Commission v France [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 92 and case-law there cited).
60 Pravilna primjena načela opreznosti pretpostavlja, kao prvo, identifikaciju potencijalno negativnih posljedica predložene uporabe MMT-a po zdravlje i, kao drugo, sveobuhvatnu procjenu rizika za zdravlje na temelju najpouzdanijih dostupnih znanstvenih podataka i najnovijih rezultata međunarodnih istraživanja (vidjeti presudu od 28. siječnja 2010., Komisija/Francuska, C-333/08, Zb., str. I-757., t. 92. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
61 Where it proves to be impossible to determine with certainty the existence or extent of the alleged risk because of the insufficiency, inconclusiveness or imprecision of the results of studies conducted, but the likelihood of real harm to public health persists should the risk materialise, the precautionary principle justifies the adoption of restrictive measures, provided they are non-discriminatory and objective (see Commission v France, paragraph 93 and case-law there cited).
61 Kada se dokaže da zbog nedostatnosti, neuvjerljivosti ili nepreciznosti rezultata provedenih studija nije moguće sa sigurnošću utvrditi postojanje ili doseg navodnog rizika, pri čemu, ako bi se rizik ostvario, postoji vjerojatnost stvarnog štetnog djelovanja na javno zdravlje, načelo opreznosti opravdava usvajanje mjera ograničavanja pod uvjetom da su nediskriminirajuće i objektivne (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu, Komisija/Francuska, t. 93. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
62 In those circumstances, it must be acknowledged that the European Union legislature may, under the precautionary principle, take protective measures without having to wait for the reality and the seriousness of those risks to be fully demonstrated (see Commission v France, paragraph 91).
62 U tim okolnostima valja potvrditi da zakonodavac Unije na temelju načela opreznosti može poduzeti zaštitne mjere, a da ne mora čekati da se u potpunosti dokaže stvarna narav i ozbiljnost tih rizika (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu, Komisija/Francuska, t. 91.).
63 In a case such as that in the main proceedings, the limit for the MMT content of fuel is not discriminatory, since it applies to the whole of the European Union and to all producers and importers of MMT.
63 U slučaju kakav je onaj u glavnom postupku granična vrijednost sadržaja MMT-a u gorivu nije diskriminirajuća, budući da se primjenjuje na cijelu Uniju i na sve proizvođače i uvoznike MMT-a.
64 Moreover, the European Union legislature could justifiably take the view that the appropriate manner of reconciling the high level of health and environmental protection and the economic interests of producers of MMT was to limit the content of MMT in fuel on a declining scale while providing for the possibility, in Article 8a(3) of Directive 98/70, of revising those limits on the basis of the results of assessment.
64 Osim toga, zakonodavac Unije mogao je opravdano zauzeti stajalište da je primjereno da se visoka razina zaštite zdravlja i okoliša uskladi s ekonomskim interesima proizvođača MMT-a tako da se sadržaj MMT-a u gorivu ograniči degresivno, ali da se istovremeno ostavi mogućnost, u članku 8.a stavku 3. Direktive 98/70, da se te granične vrijednosti revidiraju na temelju rezultata procjene.
65 Lastly, Afton challenges the level of the limits on the basis that there is no scientific basis for it, that it entails a number of disadvantages in relation to older vehicles and that the European Union legislature carried out no examination of those disadvantages. Afton adds that the limits amount to a de facto ban of MMT.
65 I na kraju, Afton osporava razinu graničnih vrijednosti smatrajući da za nju nema znanstvene osnove, da ona dovodi do nedostataka u odnosu na starija vozila i da zakonodavac Unije o tim nedostacima nije proveo ispitivanje. Afton dodaje da granične vrijednosti dovode do zabrane MMT-a.
66 However, since the nature of the harm which might be caused by MMT is uncertain, there cannot be more precise information which makes it possible to define the level of the MMT fuel content limit which would be capable of ensuring that that harm was adequately prevented.
66 Međutim, budući da je narav štetnosti MMT-a neizvjesna, nema preciznijih informacija koje bi omogućile da se definira razina granične vrijednosti sadržaja MMT-a u gorivu koja bi bila u stanju osigurati odgovarajuću prevenciju štetnosti.
67 Moreover, Afton marketed less than 0.5% of the total worldwide sales of MMT in 2008, to just a few countries in the European Union. At the same time, other Member States such as the Federal Republic of Germany have banned the presence of MMT in fuel.
67 Osim toga, Afton je prodao manje od 0,5 % od ukupne svjetske prodaje MMT-a u 2008., u samo nekoliko zemalja Unije. Istovremeno, druge države članice, kao npr. Savezna Republika Njemačka, zabranile su prisutnost MMT-a u gorivu.
68 Further, having regard to the uncertainty in relation to both the damage caused by the use of MMT and the risks created for users of MMT, the setting of limits for the MMT content of fuel does not appear manifestly disproportionate in relation to the economic interests of producers of MMT, in order to ensure a high level of protection of health and the environment.
68 Nadalje, uzimajući u obzir neizvjesnost u odnosu i na štetu uzrokovanu uporabom MMT-a i na rizike nastale za korisnike MMT-a, postavljanje graničnih vrijednosti sadržaja MMT-a u gorivu kako bi se osigurala visoka razina zaštite zdravlja ljudi i zaštite okoliša nije očito neproporcionalno u odnosu na ekonomske interese proizvođača MMT-a.
69 It follows from the foregoing that Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30, in so far as it inserts an Article 8a(2) in Directive 98/70, is not invalid by reason of the infringement of the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality.
69 Iz gore navedenog proizlazi da članak 1. stavak 8. Direktive 2009/30, u dijelu u kojem u Direktivu 98/70 umeće članak 8.a stavak 2., nije nevaljan na temelju povrede načela opreznosti i načela proporcionalnosti.
Failure to comply with the principle of equal treatment
Nepoštovanje načela jednakog postupanja
70 Afton claims that there is no justification for setting limits on MMT when no restrictions are imposed on the use of other metallic additives, including those containing manganese.
70 Afton tvrdi da nema opravdanja za postavljanje graničnih vrijednosti MMT-a bez uvođenja ograničenja uporabe drugih metalnih aditiva, uključujući i aditive koji sadrže mangan.
71 According to Afton, MMT performs a function which is comparable to that of other metallic additives and does not entail any additional risks to health and the environment. Afton cites, as an example, cyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (CMT), the use of which is not subject to any limit under the legislation at issue.
71 Prema Aftonu, MMT ima funkciju usporedivu s funkcijom drugih metalnih aditiva i nema za posljedicu dodatne rizike za zdravlje i okoliš. Afton kao primjer navodi ciklopentadienil manganov trikarbonil (CMT), čija uporaba ne podliježe graničnoj vrijednosti na temelju predmetnog propisa.
72 The institutions which have intervened before the Court contend, in essence, that other manganese-based additives are not used or imported in the European Union.
72 Institucije koje su intervenirale pred Sudom smatraju da se u biti ti drugi aditivi na bazi mangana ne rabe u Uniji niti se u nju uvoze.
73 The Parliament states that MMT has long been the subject of studies and risk analyses and that its use as a metallic additive in fuel is of long standing, whereas no studies exist on other additives.
73 Parlament navodi da je MMT već dugo predmet studija i analiza rizika te da se kao metalni aditiv u gorivu upotrebljava već duže vrijeme dok za druge aditive takvih studija nema.
74 According to settled case-law, the principle of equal treatment or non-discrimination requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (see S.P.C.M. and Others, paragraph 74 and case-law there cited).
74 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, načelo jednakog postupanja ili nediskriminacije zahtijeva da se u usporedivim situacijama ne postupa na različite načine i da se u različitim situacijama ne postupa na isti način, osim ako bi takvo postupanje bilo objektivno opravdano (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu S.P.C.M. i dr., t. 74. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
75 In that regard, it is sufficient to find that Afton has not disproved the assertion that other metallic additives, such as CMT, have not been used or imported in the European Union.
75 U tom pogledu je dovoljno utvrditi da Afton nije dokazao netočnost navoda da se drugi metalni aditivi, npr. CMT, ne rabe u Uniji niti se u nju uvoze.
76 It follows that MMT is not in a situation which is comparable to that of other manganese-based metallic additives and the European Union legislature was therefore not required to set limits for those other additives.
76 Iz toga slijedi da se kod MMT-a ne radi o situaciji koja je usporediva s onom kod drugih metalnih aditiva na bazi mangana i da zakonodavac Unije stoga nije bio obvezan postaviti granične vrijednosti za te druge aditive.
77 Consequently, since the Court finds that the principle of equal treatment has not been infringed, Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30, in so far as it inserts an Article 8a(2) in Directive 98/70, is not invalid by reason of the infringement of that principle.
77 Stoga, budući da Sud smatra da načelo jednakog postupanja nije povrijeđeno, članak 1. stavak 8. Direktive 2009/30, u dijelu u kojem u Direktivu 98/70 umeće članak 8.a stavak 2., nije nevaljan na temelju povrede tog načela.
Failure to comply with the principle of legal certainty
Nepoštovanje načela pravne sigurnosti
78 Afton claims that the new Article 8a(2) of Directive 98/70 is insufficiently precise as regards the link which should exist between the limit for the MMT content of fuel and development of a test methodology.
78 Afton tvrdi da je novi članak 8.a stavak 2. Direktive 98/70 nedovoljno precizan što se tiče veze koja bi trebala postojati između granične vrijednosti sadržaja MMT-a u gorivu i razvoja metodologije ispitivanja.
"79 According to settled case-law, the general principle of legal certainty, which is a fundamental principle of Community law, requires, in particular, that rules should be clear and precise, so that individuals may be able to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and may take steps accordingly (see Case C-110/03 Belgium v Commission [2005] ECR I-2801, paragraph 30; Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403, paragraph 68; and Intertanko and Others, paragraph 69)."
"79 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, općim načelom pravne sigurnosti kao temeljnim načelom prava Zajednice osobito se zahtijeva jasnoća i preciznost propisa kako bi pojedinci mogli nedvosmisleno utvrditi svoja prava i obveze i u skladu s njima postupati (vidjeti presude od 14. travnja 2005., Belgija/Komisija, C-110/03, Zb. str. I-2801., t. 30.; od 10. siječnja 2006., IATA i ELFAA, C-344/04, Zb., str. I-403., t. 68. kao i gore navedenu presudu Intako i dr., t. 69.)."
80 Contrary to what is claimed by Afton, an assessment of the link between the limit for the MMT content of fuel and the development of a test methodology cannot be based solely on Article 8a(2) of Directive 98/70.
80 Suprotno onom što tvrdi Afton, procjena veze između granične vrijednosti sadržaja MMT-a u gorivu i razvoja metodologije ispitivanja ne može se temeljiti isključivo na članku 8.a stavku 2. Direktive 98/70.
81 The first sentence of Article 8a(3) of Directive 98/70 expressly provides that ‘[t]he limit for the MMT content of fuel specified in paragraph 2 shall be revised on the basis of the results of the assessment carried out using the test methodology referred to in paragraph 1’.
81 Prva rečenica članka 8.a stavka 3. Direktive 98/70 izričito predviđa da se „ograničenje sadržaja MMT-a u gorivu navedeno u stavku 2. preispituje na osnovu rezultata procjene koja se provodi primjenom metodologije ispitivanja spomenute u stavku 1.”
82 It follows that there is no ambiguity in the wording of Article 8a(2) of Directive 98/70 in relation to the link between the limit for the MMT content of fuel and the development of a test methodology.
82 Iz toga slijedi da u tekstu članka 8.a stavka 2. Direktive 98/70 nema neodređenosti u pogledu veze između granične vrijednosti sadržaja MMT-a u gorivu i razvoja metodologije ispitivanja.
83 Accordingly, the Court cannot hold that the principle of legal certainty has been infringed and, consequently, Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30, in so far as it inserts an Article 8a(2) in Directive 98/70, is not invalid by reason of infringement of that principle.
83 U skladu s tim, Sud ne može tvrditi da je načelo pravne sigurnosti povrijeđeno pa stoga članak 1. stavak 8. Direktive 2009/30, u dijelu u kojem u Direktivu 98/70 umeće članak 8.a stavak 2., nije nevaljan na temelju povrede tog načela.
84 It follows from all of the foregoing that consideration of the first question has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30 in so far as it inserts an Article 8a(2) in Directive 98/70.
84 Iz svega gore navedenog proizlazi da razmatranjem prvog pitanja nije utvrđeno ništa što bi moglo utjecati na valjanost članka 1. stavka 8. Direktive 2009/30, u dijelu u kojem u Direktivu 98/70 umeće članak 8.a stavak 2.
85 By its second question, the referring court seeks, in essence, to ascertain whether Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30, which inserts Article 8a(4) to (6) in Directive 98/70, is invalid inasmuch as it creates a labelling requirement for fuels containing metallic additives.
85 Svojim drugim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku u biti pita je li članak 1. stavak 8. Direktive 2009/30, u dijelu u kojem u Direktivu 98/70 umeće članak 8.a stavke od 4. do 6., nevaljan time što stvara obvezu označivanja za goriva koja sadrže metalne aditive.
86 Afton claims that the labelling requirement was imposed as a result of a manifest error of assessment and that it is disproportionate because it amounts to a de facto ban on the use of MMT and other metallic additives.
86 Afton tvrdi da je obveza označivanja uvedena zbog očite pogreške u ocjeni i da je neproporcionalna jer je de facto ekvivalentna zabrani uporabe MMT-a i drugih metalnih aditiva.
87 According to recital 35 of Directive 2009/30, the use of metallic additives, and in particular MMT, might raise the risk of damage to human health and might cause damage to vehicle engines and emission control equipment. After mentioning the warnings of motor vehicle manufacturers, the European Union legislature was, in the last sentence of that recital, concerned to ensure that consumers did not, unknowingly, invalidate their vehicle warranties.
87 Prema uvodnoj izjavi 35. Direktive 2009/30, uporaba metalnih aditiva, a posebno MMT-a, može dovesti do rizika za zdravlje ljudi i može uzrokovati oštećenje motora u vozilima i opreme za regulaciju emisija. Nakon što je spomenuo upozorenja proizvođača motornih vozila, u posljednjoj rečenici te uvodne izjave zakonodavac Unije želio je izbjeći da kupci u neznanju ponište svoja jamstva za vozila.
88 Further, as the Advocate General stated in point 123 of her Opinion, the labelling requirement is intended to ensure consumer protection which, under Article 153 EC, is an objective of the European Union. That objective is to be achieved by the promotion of the consumer’s right to information.
88 Nadalje, kako je nezavisna odvjetnica navela u točki 123. svojeg mišljenja, obvezom označivanja želi se osigurati zaštita potrošača, a to je, prema članku 153. UEZ-a, cilj Unije. Taj cilj treba ostvariti promicanjem prava potrošača na informiranje.
89 The attachment of a label, clearly visible, containing a text reading ‘Contains metallic additives’ is an appropriate means of pursuing that objective.
89 Postavljanje na jasno vidljivo mjesto naljepnice koja sadrži tekst ,sadrži metalne aditiveʼ primjereno je sredstvo za postizanje toga cilja.
90 Contrary to Afton’s submissions, the brevity of that message and the absence of any reference to manufacturers’ warranties meet the abovementioned objective.
90 Suprotno Aftonovim tvrdnjama, kratkoća te poruke i izostanak svakog upućivanja na proizvođačka jamstva ispunjavaju gore spomenuti cilj.
91 If the consumer is to be able to prevent risk of damage to his health and to his vehicle, he must be informed of the presence of such additives in fuel.
91 Kako bi proizvođač mogao spriječiti rizike kako za svoje zdravlje tako i za svoje vozilo, mora biti informiran o prisutnosti takvih aditiva u gorivu.
92 Moreover, the objective of consumer protection cannot be attained solely by setting the limits provided for by Article 8a(2) of Directive 98/70, which are designed to meet the high level of protection of heath and environmental protection required by the Treaty and which relate only to MMT.
92 Osim toga, cilj zaštite potrošača ne može se ostvariti isključivo postavljanjem graničnih vrijednosti predviđenih člankom 8.a stavkom 2. Direktive 98/70 kojima se želi zadovoljiti visoka razina zaštite zdravlja i zaštita okoliša predviđena Ugovorom, a koje se odnose samo na MMT.
93 Further, Afton claims that the labelling requirement amounts in practice to a ban on metallic additives in fuel.
93 Nadalje, Afton tvrdi da je obveza označivanja u praksi ekvivalentna zabrani metalnih aditiva u gorivu.
94 In that regard, the Court must observe that, in any event, first, labelling is required only for the sale of fuel containing metallic additives and not for the sale of MMT as an additive and, secondly, it is not likely to impose a significantly greater burden on producers and distributors of fuel given how little fuel, that is to say, less than 0.1% of all fuel sold in the European Union, contains such additives.
94 U tom pogledu valja istaknuti da se, u svakom slučaju, kao prvo, označivanje zahtijeva samo za prodaju goriva koje sadrži metalne aditive, a ne za prodaju MMT-a kao aditiva, i drugo, da nije vjerojatno da bi ono značajnije povećalo opterećenje za proizvođače i distributere goriva s obzirom na to koliko malo goriva, tj. manje od 0,1 % svih goriva koja se prodaju u Uniji, sadrži takve aditive.
95 It follows that the European Union legislature did not make any manifest error of assessment in adopting the labelling requirement provided for in Article 8a(4) to (6) of Directive 98/70, a requirement which is not manifestly inappropriate for attaining the objective of consumer protection provided for by Directive 2009/30.
95 Iz toga slijedi da zakonodavac Unije nije počinio očitu pogrešku u ocjeni kada je obvezu označivanja predviđenu u članku 8.a stavcima od 4. do 6. Direktive 98/70 usvojio kao obvezu koja nije očito neprikladna za postizanje cilja zaštite potrošača predviđenog Direktivom 2009/30.
96 It follows from the foregoing that consideration of the second question has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30, which inserts Article 8a(4) to (6) in Directive 98/70.
96 Iz gore navedenog proizlazi da razmatranjem drugog pitanja nije utvrđeno ništa što bi moglo utjecati na valjanost članka 1. stavka 8. Direktive 2009/30, kojim se u Direktivu 98/70 umeće članak 8.a stavci od 4. do 6.
97 It follows from all of the foregoing that consideration of the questions referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30 in so far as it inserts a new Article 8a(2) and 8a(4) to (6) in Directive 98/70.
97 Iz svega gore navedenog proizlazi da razmatranjem prethodnih pitanja nije utvrđeno ništa što bi moglo utjecati na valjanost članka 1. stavka 8. Direktive 2009/30, u dijelu u kojem u Direktivu 98/70 umeće novi članak 8.a stavak 2. i članak 8.a stavke od 4. do 6.
98 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
98 Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka. Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu, koji nisu troškovi spomenutih stranaka, ne nadoknađuju se.