natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
72 Third, it is also necessary to ascertain whether the limitation imposed on the rights conferred by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, inter alia, European Court of Human Rights, Gillow v. United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 55, Series A no. 109, and Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others, paragraph 83).
72 Kao treće, također je potrebno utvrditi je li ograničenje prava predviđenih člancima 7. i 8. Povelje proporcionalno za ostvarivanje legitimnog cilja koji se želi postići (vidjeti između ostalog presudu Europskog suda za ljudska prava, Gillow/Ujedinjena Kraljevina od 24. studenoga 1986., serija A br. 109., t. 55., i gore navedenu presudu Österreichischer Rundfunk i dr., t. 83.).
73 The applicants in the main proceedings observe that the data whose publication is provided for in Article 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and in Regulation No 259/2008 allows third parties to draw conclusions as to their income. They explain that the aid represents between 30% and 70% of the total income of the beneficiaries concerned. The legitimate interests of the public would, they argue, be satisfied by the publication of anonymous statistics.
73 Podnositelji zahtjeva u glavnom postupku primjećuju da podaci čija je objava predviđena člankom 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredbom br. 259/2008 omogućavaju trećim osobama donošenje zaključaka o njihovim prihodima. Oni objašnjavaju da potpora predstavlja između 30 % i 70 % ukupnih prihoda odnosnih korisnika. Oni tvrde da bi legitimni interesi javnosti bili zadovoljeni objavom anonimnih statističkih podataka.
74 It is settled case-law that the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of European Union law, requires that measures implemented by acts of the European Union are appropriate for attaining the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it (Case C-58/08 Vodafone and Others [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).
74 U tom je smislu ustaljena praksa suda da načelo proporcionalnosti, koje je jedno od općih načela prava Unije, zahtijeva da mjere koje se provode na temelju neke odredbe prava Unije budu odgovarajuća za ostvarivanje cilja koji se njima želi postići i da ne premašuju ono što je nužno kako bi se taj cilj postigao (vidjeti presudu od 8. lipnja 2010., Vodafone i dr., C-58/08, Zb., str. I-4999., t. 51. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
75 It is not disputed that the publication on the internet of data by name relating to the beneficiaries concerned and the precise amounts received by them from the EAGF and the EAFRD is liable to increase transparency with respect to the use of the agricultural aid concerned. Such information made available to citizens reinforces public control of the use to which that money is put and contributes to the best use of public funds.
75 Nesporno je da će objava podataka na internetu s imenima odnosnih korisnika i točnih iznosa koje su primili iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a dovesti do bolje transparentnosti u vezi s korištenjem dotične poljoprivredne potpore. Dostupnost takvih podataka građanima jača javnu kontrolu korištenja tih sredstava i doprinosi najboljem mogućem korištenju javnih sredstava.
76 As to whether the measure is necessary, it must be recalled that the objective of the publication at issue may not be pursued without having regard to the fact that that objective must be reconciled with the fundamental rights set forth in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter (see, to that effect, Case C-73/07 Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia [2008] ECR I-9831, paragraph 53).
76 U odnosu na to je li mjera potrebna, valja podsjetiti da se cilj predmetne objave ne može postići bez uzimanja u obzir činjenice da je cilj potrebno uskladiti s temeljnim pravima utvrđenima u člancima 7. i 8. Povelje (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 16. prosinca 2008., Satakunnan Markkinapörssi i Satamedia, C-73/07, Zb., str. I-9831., t. 53.).
77 It is thus necessary to determine whether the Council of the European Union and the Commission balanced the European Union’s interest in guaranteeing the transparency of its acts and ensuring the best use of public funds against the interference with the right of the beneficiaries concerned to respect for their private life in general and to the protection of their personal data in particular. The Court has held in this respect that derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of personal data must apply only in so far as is strictly necessary (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, paragraph 56).
77 Stoga je potrebno odrediti jesu li Vijeće Europske unije i Komisija uravnotežili interes Europske unije u smislu zajamčene transparentnosti svojih radnji i osiguranja najboljeg korištenja javnih sredstava, s jedne strane, i zadiranja u pravo odnosnih korisnika na poštovanje njihovog privatnog života općenito i posebno na zaštitu njihovih osobnih podataka, s druge strane. Sud je već presudio u ovom smislu da se odstupanja i ograničenja u odnosu na zaštitu osobnih podataka moraju primjenjivati samo u mjeri u kojoj je to nužno potrebno (gore navedena presuda Satakunnan Markkinapörssi i Satamedia, t. 56.).
78 The Member States which have submitted written observations to the Court, the Council and the Commission argue that the objective pursued by the publication required by Article 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and by Regulation No 259/2008 could not be achieved by measures which interfere less with the right of the beneficiaries concerned to respect for their private life in general and the protection of their personal data in particular. Information limited to those of the beneficiaries concerned who receive aid exceeding a certain threshold would, it is submitted, not give taxpayers an accurate image of the CAP. Taxpayers would have the impression that there were only ‘big’ beneficiaries of aid from the agricultural Funds, whereas there are numerous ‘little’ ones. Limiting publication to legal persons only would not be satisfactory either. The Commission submits in this connection that the largest beneficiaries of agricultural aid include natural persons.
78 Države članice koje su podnijele pismena očitovanja Sudu, Vijeće i Komisija tvrde da cilj koji se želi postići objavom predviđenom člankom 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredbom 259/2008 nije mogao biti postignut mjerama koje bi manje zadirale u pravo odnosnih korisnika na poštovanje njihovog privatnog života općenito i posebno zaštitu njihovih osobnih podataka. Podaci ograničeni samo na one korisnike koji primaju potporu koja premašuje određeni prag ne bi, kako je navedeno u očitovanju, poreznim obveznicima dali vjernu sliku ZPP-a. Porezni obveznici imali bi dojam da postoje samo „veliki” korisnici potpore iz poljoprivrednih Fondova iako postoje mnogobrojni „mali” korisnici. Ograničavanje objave samo na pravne osobe također nije zadovoljavajuće. Komisija smatra s ovim u vezi da najveći korisnici poljoprivredne potpore uključuju fizičke osobe.
79 While it is true that in a democratic society taxpayers have a right to be kept informed of the use of public funds (Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others, paragraph 85), the fact remains that striking a proper balance between the various interests involved made it necessary for the institutions, before adopting the provisions whose validity is contested, to ascertain whether publication via a single freely consultable website in each Member State of data by name relating to all the beneficiaries concerned and the precise amounts received by each of them from the EAGF and the EAFRD – with no distinction being drawn according to the duration, frequency or nature and amount of the aid received – did not go beyond what was necessary for achieving the legitimate aims pursued, having regard in particular to the interference with the rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter resulting from such publication.
79 Iako u demokratskom društvu porezni obveznici imaju pravo biti obaviješteni o korištenju javnih sredstava (gore navedena presuda Österreichischer Rundfunk i dr. t. 85.), činjenica je da su zbog uspostavljanja ispravne ravnoteže između različitih postojećih interesa institucije morale, prije donošenja odredaba čija se valjanost osporava, utvrditi ne premašuje li objava podataka u odnosu na sve korisnike te točnih iznosa koji je svaki od njih primio iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a preko jedinstvene slobodno dostupne internetske stranice u svakoj državi članici – bez razlikovanja na temelju trajanja, učestalosti ili prirode i iznosa primljene potpore – ono što je potrebno za postizanje legitimnih ciljeva koji se nastoje postići, posebno uzimajući u obzir zadiranje u prava priznata člancima 7. i 8. Povelje uslijed takve objave.
80 As far as natural persons benefiting from aid under the EAGF and the EAFRD are concerned, however, it does not appear that the Council and the Commission sought to strike such a balance between the European Union’s interest in guaranteeing the transparency of its acts and ensuring the best use of public funds, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, on the other.
80 U odnosu na fizičke osobe koje su korisnici potpore iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a, međutim, ne čini se da su Vijeće i Komisija nastojali postići ravnotežu između interesa Europske unije tako da zajamče transparentnost svojih djelovanja i osiguraju najbolje moguće korištenje javnih sredstava, s jedne strane, i temeljnih prava priznatih člancima 7. i 8. Povelje, s druge strane.
81 There is nothing to show that, when adopting Article 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and Regulation No 259/2008, the Council and the Commission took into consideration methods of publishing information on the beneficiaries concerned which would be consistent with the objective of such publication while at the same time causing less interference with those beneficiaries’ right to respect for their private life in general and to protection of their personal data in particular, such as limiting the publication of data by name relating to those beneficiaries according to the periods for which they received aid, or the frequency or nature and amount of aid received.
81 Ništa ne pokazuje da su, kod donošenja članka 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredbe br. 259/2008, Vijeće i Komisija uzeli u obzir načine objave podataka o odnosnim korisnicima koji bi bili u skladu s ciljem takve objave, dok bi istovremeno dovodili do manje zadiranja u pravo tih korisnika na poštovanje njihovog privatnog života općenito i posebno zaštitu njihovih osobnih podataka, kao što je ograničavanje objave podataka s imenom korisnika prema razdobljima kada su dobivali potporu, ili učestalosti ili prirodi i iznosu primljene potpore.
82 Such limited publication by name might be accompanied, if appropriate, by relevant information about other natural persons benefiting from aid under the EAGF and the EAFRD and the amounts received by them.
82 Takva ograničena objava s imenima može biti popraćena, ako je to potrebno, odgovarajućim podacima o drugim fizičkim osobama koje dobivaju potporu iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a i iznosima koje su primile.
83 The institutions ought thus to have examined, in the course of striking a proper balance between the various interests involved, whether publication by name limited in the manner indicated in paragraph 81 above would have been sufficient to achieve the objectives of the European Union legislation at issue in the main proceedings. In particular, it does not appear that such a limitation, which would protect some of the beneficiaries concerned from interference with their private lives, would not provide citizens with a sufficiently accurate image of the aid granted by the EAGF and the EAFRD to achieve the objectives of that legislation.
83 Institucije su stoga u postupku uspostavljanja ispravne ravnoteže između različitih uključenih interesa trebale ispitati bi li objava s imenima ograničena kako je prethodno navedeno u točki 81. bila dovoljna za postizanje ciljeva predviđenih zakonodavstvom Europske unije koje je predmet glavnog postupka. Posebno nije očito da takvo ograničenje, koje bi zaštitilo neke od odnosnih korisnika od zadiranja u njihove privatne živote, ne bi osiguralo građanima dovoljno točnu sliku potpore koja je odobrena iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a uz istovremeno postizanje ciljeva tog zakonodavstva.
84 The Member States which submitted written observations to the Court and the Council and the Commission refer also to the significant role of the CAP in the European Union budget in order to justify the need for publication laid down by Article 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and by Regulation No 259/2008.
84 Države članice koje su podnijele pismena očitovanja Sudu i Vijeću i Komisiji također se pozivaju na značajnu ulogu ZPP-a u proračunu Europske unije da bi opravdale potrebu za objavom utvrđenom u članku 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredbom br. 259/2008.
85 That argument must be rejected. It is necessary to bear in mind that the institutions are obliged to balance, before disclosing information relating to a natural person, the European Union’s interest in guaranteeing the transparency of its actions and the infringement of the rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. No automatic priority can be conferred on the objective of transparency over the right to protection of personal data (see, to that effect, Commission v Bavarian Lager, paragraphs 75 to 79), even if important economic interests are at stake.
85 Taj argument treba odbiti. Treba podsjetiti na to da su institucije obvezne uzeti u obzir, prije otkrivanja podataka o nekoj fizičkoj osobi, interes Europske unije u smislu jamčenja transparentnosti njezinih radnji i kršenja prava priznatih člancima 7. i 8. Povelje. Cilj transparentnosti ne smije dobiti automatski prioritet pred zaštitom osobnih podataka (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Komisija/Bavarian Lager, t. od 75. do 79.)., čak ni kada su u pitanju važni gospodarski interesi.
86 It follows from the foregoing that it does not appear that the institutions properly balanced, on the one hand, the objectives of Article 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and of Regulation No 259/2008 against, on the other, the rights which natural persons are recognised as having under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. Regard being had to the fact that derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of personal data must apply only in so far as is strictly necessary (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, paragraph 56) and that it is possible to envisage measures which affect less adversely that fundamental right of natural persons and which still contribute effectively to the objectives of the European Union rules in question, it must be held that, by requiring the publication of the names of all natural persons who were beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid and of the exact amounts received by those persons, the Council and the Commission exceeded the limits which compliance with the principle of proportionality imposes.
86 Iz gore navedenog slijedi kako institucije nisu postigle dobru ravnotežu između, s jedne strane, ciljeva članka 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredbe br. 259/2008 i, s druge strane, prava koja su priznata fizičkim osobama na temelju članaka 7. i 8. Povelje. S obzirom na činjenicu da se izuzeća i ograničenja u odnosu na zaštitu osobnih podataka moraju primjenjivati samo u mjeri u kojoj je to nužno potrebno (gore navedena presuda Markkinapörssi et Satamedia, t. 56.) te da je moguće predvidjeti mjere kojima se manje nepovoljno utječe na odnosno temeljno pravo fizičkih osoba, a koje ipak učinkovito doprinose ciljevima odgovarajućih pravila Europske unije, valja presuditi da su, odredivši objavu imena svih fizičkih osoba koje su korisnici EFJP-a i EPFRR-a i točnih iznosa koje su te osobe primile, Vijeće i Komisija premašili ograničenja koja nalaže postupanje u skladu s načelom proporcionalnosti.
87 Finally, with regard to the legal persons which received EAGF and EAFRD aid, and in so far as they may invoke the rights conferred by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter (see paragraph 53 of the present judgment), the view must be taken that the obligation to publish which follows from the provisions of the European Union rules the validity of which has here been brought into question does not go beyond the limits imposed by compliance with the principle of proportionality. The seriousness of the breach of the right to protection of personal data manifests itself in different ways for, on the one hand, legal persons and, on the other, natural persons. It is necessary to point out in this regard that legal persons are already subject to a more onerous obligation in respect of the publication of data relating to them. Furthermore, the obligation on the competent national authorities to examine, before the data in question are published and for each legal person which is a beneficiary of EAGF or EAFRD aid, whether the name of that person identifies natural persons would impose on those authorities an unreasonable administrative burden (see, to that effect, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, K.U. v.Finland, 2 March 2009, application no 2872/02, § 48, not yet published).
87 Naposljetku, u odnosu na pravne osobe koje su primile potporu iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a te u mjeri u kojoj se mogu pozvati na prava priznata člancima 7. i 8. Povelje (vidjeti točku 53. ove presude), treba smatrati da obveza objave koja proizlazi iz odredaba pravila Europske unije čija je valjanost dovedena u pitanje ne premašuje ograničenja koja proizlaze iz sukladnosti s načelom proporcionalnosti. Ozbiljnost kršenja prava na zaštitu osobnih podataka očituje se na različite načine za, s jedne strane, pravne osobe i, s druge strane, fizičke osobe. Valja naglasiti u ovom pogledu da pravne osobe već podliježu strožoj obvezi u odnosu na objavu podataka o njima. Nadalje, obveza nadležnih nacionalnih tijela da prije objave odnosnih podataka i za svaku pravnu osobu koja je korisnik potpore iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a ispitaju mogu li se iz imena pravne osobe identificirati fizičke osobe, predstavljala bi za ta tijela nerazuman administrativni teret (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu Europskog suda za ljudska prava od 2. ožujka 2009., K.U./Finska, tužba br. 2872/02, još neobjavljenu, t. 48.).
88 In those circumstances, it must be held that the provisions of European Union law, the validity of which is questioned by the referring court, observe, in so far as they concern the publication of data relating to legal persons, a fair balance in the consideration taken of the respective interests in issue.
88 U tim okolnostima treba smatrati da se odredbama prava Unije, čiju valjanost sud koji je uputio zahtjev dovodi u pitanje, održava, u mjeri u kojoj se odnose na objavu podataka o pravnim osobama, pravedna ravnoteža u uzimanju u obzir odgovarajućih interesa.
89 On the basis of all of the foregoing, Article 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and Regulation No 259/2008 must be declared invalid to the extent to which, with regard to natural persons who are beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid, those provisions impose an obligation to publish personal data relating to each beneficiary without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria such as the periods during which those persons have received such aid, the frequency of such aid or the nature and amount thereof.
89 Na temelju svega prethodno navedenog, članak 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredba br. 259/2008 treba proglasiti nevaljanima u mjeri u kojoj, u odnosu na fizičke osobe koje su korisnici potpore iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a, te odredbe nalažu obvezu objave osobnih podataka o svakom korisniku bez razlikovanja na temelju odgovarajućih kriterija, kao što su razdoblja tijekom kojih su osobe primale takvu potporu, učestalost takve potpore ili njezina priroda i iznos.
c) The validity of Article 42(8b) of Regulation No 1290/2005
c) Valjanost članka 42. stavka 8.b Uredbe br. 1290/2005
90 Article 42(8b) of Regulation No 1290/2005 authorises the Commission to adopt the detailed rules for the implementation solely of Article 44a of that regulation.
90 Valja podsjetiti na to da je člankom 42. stavkom 8.b Uredbe br. 1290/2005 Komisija ovlaštena donijeti detaljna pravila za provedbu isključivo članka 44.a te uredbe.
91 However, as Article 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 has to be declared invalid for the reasons indicated above, Article 42(8b) of that regulation must be declared invalid in like manner.
91 Međutim, budući da članak 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 valja proglasiti nevaljanim iz gore navedenih razloga, članak 42. stavak 8.b navedene uredbe isto tako valja proglasiti nevaljanim.
92 The answer to the first question and to the first part of the second question is therefore that Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005, and Regulation No 259/2008, are invalid in so far as, with regard to natural persons who are beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid, those provisions impose an obligation to publish personal data relating to each beneficiary without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria such as the periods during which those persons have received such aid, the frequency of such aid or the nature and amount thereof.
92 Stoga na prvo pitanje i na prvi dio drugog pitanja valja odgovoriti da članak 42. stavak 8.b i članak 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredba br. 259/2008 treba proglasiti nevaljanima u mjeri u kojoj, u odnosu na fizičke osobe koje su korisnici potpore iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a, te odredbe nalažu obvezu objave osobnih podataka o svakom korisniku bez razlikovanja na temelju odgovarajućih kriterija, kao što su razdoblja tijekom kojih su te osobe primale potporu, učestalost takve potpore ili njezina priroda i iznos.
d) The effects in time of the invalidity which has been established
d) Vremenski učinci utvrđene nevaljanosti
93 Where it is justified by overriding considerations of legal certainty, the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU, which is also applicable by analogy to a reference under Article 267 TFEU for a preliminary ruling on the validity of acts of the European Union, confers on the Court a discretion to decide, in each particular case, which specific effects of the act in question must be regarded as definitive (see, to that effect, Case C-333/07 Regie Networks [2008] ECR I-10807, paragraph 121 and the case-law cited).
93 Valja podsjetiti na to da, kada je to opravdano važnim razlozima pravne sigurnosti, drugi stavak članka 264. UFEU-a, koji se također analogijom primjenjuje na prethodni postupak na temelju članka 267. UFEU-a u odnosu na valjanost akata Europske unije, Sud ima diskrecijsku ovlast da u svakom pojedinačnom slučaju odluči koje konkretne učinke odnosnog akta treba smatrati konačnima (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 22. prosinca 2008., Regie Networks, C-333/07, Zb., str. I-10807., t. 121. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
94 In view of the large number of publications which have taken place in the Member States on the basis of rules which were regarded as being valid, it must be held that the invalidity of the provisions mentioned in paragraph 92 of the present judgment does not allow any action to be brought to challenge the effects of the publication of the lists of beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid carried out by the national authorities on the basis of those provisions during the period prior to the date on which the present judgment is delivered.
94 S obzirom na velik broj objava koje su države članice izvršile na temelju pravila koja su smatrana valjanima, valja priznati da nevaljanost odredaba navedenih u točki 92. ove presude ne dopušta dovođenje u pitanja učinaka objave popisa korisnika potpore iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a koju su izvršila nacionalna tijela na temelju tih odredaba tijekom razdoblja koje je prethodilo danu objave ove presude.
2. The third question
2. Treće pitanje