natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
97 In regard to the repeal of Directive 91/357, it does not appear that this made it impossible to implement Directive 2002/2, as manufacturers can, in the absence of Community rules, or even national rules, in that regard, use current specific designations of the feed materials.
97 Što se tiče stavljanja izvan snage Direktive 91/357, time nije onemogućena provedba Direktive 2002/2 jer proizvođači mogu, u slučaju da ne postoje propisi Zajednice ili nacionalni propisi, u tom pogledu upotrebljavati postojeće specifičnee nazive krmiva.
98 It follows that Directive 2002/2 must be interpreted as meaning that its application is not contingent on the adoption of the positive list of feed materials designated by their specific names referred to in recital (10) in the preamble to that directive.
98 Iz toga proizlazi da Direktivu 2002/2 valja tumačiti u smislu da njezina primjena nije uvjetovana donošenjem pozitivnog popisa iz desete uvodne izjave te direktive na kojem su krmiva navedena pod svojim specifičnim nazivima.
The powers of the competent national authorities to suspend application of a Community measure
Ovlasti nadležnih nacionalnih tijela za suspenziju primjene akta Zajednice
99 By its second question, the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage asks whether, if the conditions are satisfied under which a national court of a Member State is entitled to suspend implementation of a contested measure of the Community institutions, in particular where the question concerning the validity of that contested measure has already been referred by a national court of that Member State to the Court of Justice, the competent national authorities of the other Member States are themselves also entitled, without judicial intervention, to suspend application of that measure until such time as the Court of Justice has given a ruling on its validity.
99 Svojim drugim pitanjem Rechtbank's-Gravenhage pita imaju li, ako su zadovoljeni uvjeti prema kojima nacionalni sud države članice ima pravo suspendirati primjenu osporavanog akta institucija Zajednice, a osobito ako je nacionalni sud te države članice Sudu već postavio pitanje koje se odnosi na valjanost tog spornog akta, i nadležna nacionalna tijela drugih država članica pravo bez posredovanja sudova suspendirati primjenu tog akta dok Sud ne donese odluku o njegovoj valjanosti.
100 Nevedi, the claimant in the main proceedings in Case C-194/04, submits that the national court addressed its second question to the Court of Justice by reason of the fact that, as the body with competence to issue regulations applicable in matters of livestock feed in the Netherlands, the Productschap was about to suspend of its own motion, that is to say, without judicial intervention, the application of the open declaration rules pending a ruling by the Court in Case C-453/03.
100 Nevedi, tužitelj u glavnom postupku u predmetu C-194/04, tvrdi da je sud koji je uputio zahtjev Sudu postavio drugo pitanje jer je Productschap, kao tijelo nadležno za donošenje propisa primjenjivih u području stočne hrane u Nizozemskoj, po službenoj dužnosti, odnosno bez posredovanja sudova, namjeravao suspendirati primjenu pravila o otvorenoj deklaraciji do donošenja odluke Suda u predmetu C-453/03.
It was because of the refusal of the Minister concerned to suspend the applicable rules that Nevedi was constrained to institute legal proceedings and to request the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, acting pursuant to its jurisdiction to grant interim relief, to suspend those rules.
Zbog odbijanja dotičnog ministra da suspendira primjenjivi propis, Nevedi je bio prisiljen pokrenuti sudski postupak i zatražiti od suca privremene pravne zaštite suspendira taj propis.
101 Nevedi points out that, when the conditions which, according to the Court's case-law, govern the possibility of relying on the provisions of a directive before a national court are satisfied, all authorities, including the administrative authorities, are themselves also obliged to apply those provisions (see Case 103/88 Fratelli Costanzo [1989] ECR 1839, paragraphs 31 and 32).
101 Nevedi podsjeća da ako su zadovoljeni uvjeti kojima je prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda uređena mogućnost pozivanja na odredbe direktive pred nacionalnim sudom, sva tijela, uključujući upravna tijela, i sama su dužna primjenjivati te odredbe (vidjeti presudu od 22. lipnja 1989., Fratelli Costanzo, 103/88, Zb., str. 1839., t. 31. i 32.).
If those administrative authorities are obliged, in the same way as the judicial authorities, to apply the provisions of a directive, they ought also to be authorised, on grounds of procedural economy, to suspend application of a disputed Community measure under the same conditions as are those judicial authorities.
Ako su ta upravna tijela obvezna, jednako kao i pravosudna tijela, primjenjivati odredbe direktive, trebaju zbog ekonomičnosti postupka biti ovlaštena i za suspenziju primjene osporavanog akta Zajednice pod jednakom uvjetima kao i ta pravosudna tijela.
102 The Italian, Netherlands and Greek Governments, together with the Commission, refer to the Court's case-law on interim measures, the guarantees of impartiality and independence provided by a national court, the need for a uniform application of Community law, and the objectives of the preliminary-ruling procedure.
102 Talijanska, nizozemska i grčka vlada te Komisija podsjećaju na sudsku praksu Suda u području privremenih mjera, na osiguravanje nepristranosti i neovisnosti nacionalnih sudova, na potrebu za jedinstvenom primjenom prava Zajednice i na ciljeve prethodnog postupka.
103 As the Court has held in its judgment in Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest [1991] ECR I-415, paragraph 18 (`Zuckerfabrik'), references for preliminary rulings on the validity of a measure, like actions for annulment, allow the legality of acts of the Community institutions to be reviewed.
103 Kao što je Sud istaknuo u presudi od 21. veljače 1991., Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen i Zuckerfabrik Soest (C-143/88 i C-92/89, Zb., str. I-415., t. 18., u daljnjem tekstu: presuda Zuckerfabrik), zahtjev za prethodnu odluku o procjeni valjanosti, jednako kao i tužba za poništenje, je vrsta nadzora zakonitosti akata tijela Zajednice.
In the context of actions for annulment, Article 242 EC enables applicants to request enforcement of the contested act to be suspended and empowers the Court to order such suspension.
Članak 242. UEZ-a, u okviru tužbe za poništenje, tužitelju daje mogućnost da zahtijeva suspenziju primjene pobijanog akta, a Sudu ovlast da je odredi.
The coherence of the system of interim legal protection therefore requires that national courts should also be able to order suspension of enforcement of a national administrative measure based on a Community regulation, the legality of which is contested (see also Case C-465/93 Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I) [1995] ECR I-3761, paragraph 22, and Case C-68/95 T. Port [1996] ECR I-6065, paragraph 49; on the Court's lack of jurisdiction to order interim measures in the context of preliminary-ruling proceedings, see the order of the President of the Court in Case C-186/01 R Dory [2001] ECR I-7823, paragraph 13).
Koherentnost sustava privremene zaštite stoga zahtijeva da nacionalni sudac može jednako tako odrediti suspenziju primjene nacionalnog upravnog akta koji se temelji na propisu Zajednice čija se valjanost osporava (vidjeti i presude od 9. studenoga 1995., Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft i dr. (I), C-465/93, Zb., str. I-3761., t. 22. i od 26. studenoga 1996., T. Port, C-68/95, Zb., str. I-6065., t. 49., u vezi s nenadležnošću Suda za odlučivanje o privremenim mjerama u okviru prethodnog postupka vidjeti rješenje predsjednika Suda od 24. listopada 2001., Dory, C-186/01 R, Zb., str. I-7823., t. 13.).
104 The Court has, however, ruled that the uniform application of Community law, which is a fundamental requirement of the Community legal order, means that the suspension of enforcement of administrative measures based on a Community regulation, whilst it is governed by national procedural law, in particular as regards the making and examination of the application, must in all the Member States be subject, at the very least, to conditions which are uniform so far as the granting of such relief is concerned and which it has defined as being the same conditions as those of the application for interim relief brought before the Court (Zuckerfabrik, cited above, paragraphs 26 and 27).
104 Međutim, Sud je presudio da jedinstvena primjena prava Zajednice, koja je temeljni zahtjev pravnog poretka Zajednice, podrazumijeva da suspenzija primjene upravnih akata koji se temelje na propisu Zajednice, premda je uređena nacionalnim postupovnim pravilima, osobito u odnosu na podnošenje i odlučivanje o zahtjevu, u svim državama članicama mora biti podložna u najmanju ruku uvjetima za odobrenje koji su ujednačeni,i za koje je on utvrdio da su jednaki uvjetima iz zahtjeva za privremenu pravnu zaštitu pred Sudom (gore navedena presuda Zuckerfabrik, t. 26. i 27.).
105 The Court has pointed out in particular that, in order to determine whether the conditions relating to urgency and the risk of serious and irreparable damage have been satisfied, the national court dealing with the application for interim relief must examine the circumstances particular to the case before it and consider whether immediate enforcement of the measure which is the subject of the application for interim relief would be likely to result in irreversible damage to the applicant which could not be made good if the Community act were to be declared invalid (Zuckerfabrik, paragraph 29; Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I), cited above, paragraph 41).
105 Sud je osobito naveo da nacionalni sud koji odlučuje o zahtjevu za privremenu pravnu zaštitu mora, kada utvrđuje jesu li ispunjeni uvjeti koji se odnose na hitnost te rizik velike i nenadoknadive štete, ispitati okolnosti svojstvene svakom pojedinom slučaju i procijeniti elemente koji omogućavaju da se utvrdi uzrokuje li tužitelju neodgodiva primjena akta koji je predmet zahtjeva za suspenziju nenadoknadivu štetu, koju ne bi bilo moguće popraviti da akt Zajednice treba proglasiti nevaljanim (gore navedene presude Zuckerfabrik, t. 29., i Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft i dr. (I), t. 41.).
106 As the court responsible for applying, within the framework of its jurisdiction, the provisions of Community law and consequently under an obligation to ensure that Community law is fully effective, the national court, when dealing with an application for interim relief, must take account of the damage which the interim measure may cause to the legal regime established by a Community measure for the Community as a whole.
106 Nacionalni sud, kao sud koji je odgovoran za primjenu odredaba prava Zajednice u okviru svoje nadležnosti i koji je stoga obvezan osigurati puni učinak prava Zajednice, treba pri odlučivanju o zahtjevu za privremenu pravnu zaštitu uzeti u obzir štetu koju bi privremena mjera mogla uzrokovati pravnom sustavu koji je aktom Zajednice uspostavljen za Zajednicu kao cjelinu.
It must consider, on the one hand, the cumulative effect which would arise if a large number of courts were also to adopt interim measures for similar reasons and, on the other, those special features of the applicant's situation which distinguish it from the other operators concerned (Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I), paragraph 44).
On treba razmotriti, s jedne strane, kumulativni učinak koji bi nastao kada bi veliki broj sudova jednako tako donio privremene mjere iz sličnih razloga i, s druge strane, specifičnost situacije tužitelja prema kojoj se razlikuje od drugih zainteresiranih gospodarskih subjekata (gore navedena presuda Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft i dr. (I), t. 44.).
107 In particular, if the grant of interim relief may represent a financial risk for the Community, the national court must also be in a position to require the applicant to provide adequate guarantees, such as the deposit of money or other security (Zuckerfabrik, paragraph 32; Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I), paragraph 45).
107 Osobito ako odobrenje privremene pravne zaštite može imati za posljedicu financijski rizik za Zajednicu, nacionalni sud treba usto imati mogućnost tužitelju naložiti davanje odgovarajućeg jamstva, poput uplate pologa ili drugog osiguranja (gore navedene presude Zuckerfabrik, t. 32., i Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft i dr. (I), t. 45.).
108 The unavoidable conclusion in this regard is that national administrative authorities, such as those in issue in Case C-194/04, are not in a position to adopt interim measures while complying with the conditions for granting such measures as defined by the Court.
108 Stoga u tom pogledu valja utvrditi da nacionalna upravna tijela, kao što su ona o kojima je riječ u predmetu C-194/04, ne mogu donijeti privremene mjere uz poštovanje uvjeta za odobrenje takvih mjera kako ih je utvrdio Sud.
109 In this context, it is in particular appropriate to point out that the actual status of those authorities is not in general such as to guarantee that they have the same degree of independence and impartiality as that which national courts are recognised as having.
109 U tom kontekstu osobito valja istaknuti da se općenito već zbog samog položaja tih tijela ne može jamčiti jednaki stupanj njihove neovisnosti i nepristranosti kao onaj koji se priznaje nacionalnim sudovima.
Likewise, it is not certain that such authorities would benefit from the exercise of the adversarial principle inherent to judicial proceedings, which allows account to be taken of the arguments put forward by the different parties before the interests in issue are weighed one against the other at the time when a decision is being taken.
Jednako tako nije sigurno da će takva tijela imati koristi od načela kontradiktornosti koje je svojstveno sudskom postupku i na temelju kojeg se omogućuje uzimanje u obzir argumenata različitih stranaka prije nego se postojeći interesi odvagnu pri donošenju odluke.
110 So far as concerns the argument that considerations of expedition or cost may justify the need to recognise the national administrative authorities as having competence, it must be emphasised that national courts ruling in applications for interim relief may in general adopt decisions within very short periods of time.
110 U pogledu argumenta da se razlozima povezanima s hitnošću ili troškovima može opravdati potreba za priznavanjem nadležnosti nacionalnim upravnim tijelima, valja istaknuti da nacionalni sudovi koji odlučuju o zahtjevima za privremenu pravnu zaštitu mogu općenito donositi odluke u vrlo kratkim rokovima.
In any event, an argument relating to expedition or cost cannot be conclusive in regard to the guarantees offered by the systems of judicial protection established by the respective legal systems of the Member States.
U svakom slučaju, argument koji se odnosi na hitnost ili troškove ne može biti odlučujući s obzirom na jamstva koja pružaju sustavi sudske zaštite uspostavljeni u okviru pravnih poredaka država članica.
111 The answer to the question referred must therefore be that, even in the case in which a court of a Member State forms the view that the conditions have been satisfied under which it may suspend application of a Community measure, in particular where the question of the validity of that measure has already been referred to the Court, the competent national administrative authorities of the other Member States cannot suspend application of that measure until such time as the Court of Justice has ruled on its validity.
111 Stoga na postavljeno pitanje valja odgovoriti da čak i ako sud države članice smatra da su ispunjeni uvjeti prema kojima može suspendirati primjenu akta Zajednice, osobito ako je Sudu već postavljeno pitanje valjanosti tog akta, nadležna nacionalna upravna tijela drugih država članica ne mogu suspendirati primjenu tog akta dok Sud ne donese odluku o njegovoj valjanosti.
National courts alone are entitled to verify, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the cases brought before them, whether the conditions governing the grant of interim relief have been satisfied.
Samo su nacionalni sudovi ovlašteni provjeriti, uzimajući u obzir specifične okolnosti predmeta koji se pred njima vode, jesu li ispunjeni uvjeti za određivanje privremenih mjera.
112 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the actions pending before the national courts, the decision on costs is a matter for those courts.
112 Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudovima koji su uputili zahtjev, na tim je sudovima da odluče o troškovima postupka.
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
Slijedom navedenog, Sud (veliko vijeće) odlučuje:
1. Examination of heading (a) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, of Question 1 in Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, and of Question 1(a) in Case C-194/04 has not revealed any factor capable of supporting the conclusion that Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC was not validly adopted on the basis of Article 152(4)(b) EC.
1. Ispitivanjem točke (a) pitanja u predmetu C-453/03, prvog pitanja u predmetima C-11/04 i C-12/04 te prvog pitanja točke (a) u predmetu C-194/04 nije otkriven nijedan element na temelju kojeg se može zaključiti da članak 1. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 1. stavak 4. Direktive 2002/2/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 28. siječnja 2002. o izmjeni Direktive Vijeća 79/373/EEZ o prometu krmnih smjesa i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive Komisije 91/357/EEZ nisu bili valjano doneseni na temelju članka 152. stavka 4. točke (b) UEZ-a.
2. Examination of Question 4 in Case C-12/04 has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
2. Ispitivanjem četvrtog pitanja u predmetu C-12/04 nije otkriven nijedan element koji može utjecati na valjanost članka 1. stavka 1. točke (b) i članka 1. stavka 4. Direktive 2002/2 s obzirom na načelo jednakog postupanja i nediskriminacije.
3. Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2, which requires manufacturers of compound animal feedingstuffs to indicate, at a customer's request, the exact composition of a feedingstuff, is invalid in the light of the principle of proportionality.
3. Članak 1. stavak 1. točka (b) Direktive 2002/2, kojim se od proizvođača krmnih smjesa za životinje zahtijeva da na zahtjev korisnika navedu točan sastav hrane za životinje, nevaljan je s obzirom na načelo proporcionalnosti.
By contrast, examination of heading (c) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, of Question 2 in Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, and Question 1(c) in Case C-194/04 has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of that principle.
Suprotno tome, ispitivanjem točke (c) pitanja postavljenog u predmetu C-453/03, drugog pitanja u predmetima C-11/04 i C-12/04 te prvog pitanja točke (c) u predmetu C-194/04 nije otkriven nijedan element koji može utjecati na valjanost članka 1. stavka 4. Direktive 2002/2 s obzirom na to načelo.
4. Directive 2002/2 must be interpreted as meaning that its application is not contingent on the adoption of the positive list of feed materials designated by their specific names referred to in recital (10) in the preamble to that directive.
4. Direktivu 2002/2 valja tumačiti u smislu da njezina primjena nije uvjetovana donošenjem pozitivnog popisa iz desete uvodne izjave te direktive, na kojem su krmiva navedena pod svojim specifičnim nazivima.
5. Even in the case in which a court of a Member State forms the view that the conditions have been satisfied under which it may suspend application of a Community measure, in particular where the question of the validity of that measure has already been referred to the Court, the competent national administrative authorities of the other Member States cannot suspend application of that measure until such time as the Court has ruled on its validity.
5. Čak i ako sud države članice smatra da su ispunjeni uvjeti prema kojima može suspendirati primjenu akta Zajednice, osobito ako je Sudu već postavljeno pitanje valjanosti tog akta, nadležna nacionalna upravna tijela drugih država članica ne mogu suspendirati primjenu tog akta dok Sud ne donese odluku o njegovoj valjanosti.
National courts alone are entitled to determine, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the cases brought before them, whether the conditions governing the grant of interim relief have been satisfied.
Samo su nacionalni sudovi ovlašteni utvrditi, uzimajući u obzir specifične okolnosti predmeta koji se pred njima vode, jesu li ispunjeni uvjeti za određivanje privremenih mjera.
22 November 2005
22. studenoga 2005.
(Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6 - Equal treatment as regards employment and occupation - Age discrimination)
„Direktiva 1999/70/EZ - Članci 2., 5. i 8. Okvirnog sporazuma o radu na određeno vrijeme - Direktiva 2000/78/EZ - Članak 6. - Jednako postupanje pri zapošljavanju i obavljanju zanimanja - Diskriminacija na temelju dobi"
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeitsgericht München (Germany), made by decision of 26 February 2004, registered at the Court on 17 March 2004, in the proceedings
Povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Arbeitsgericht München (Radni sud u Münchenu, Njemačka), odlukom od 26. veljače 2004., koju je Sud zaprimio 17. ožujka 2004., u postupku
Werner Mangold
Werner Mangold
v Rüdiger Helm,
protiv Rüdigera Helma
THE COURT (Grand Chamber),
SUD (veliko vijeće)
composed of P. Jann, President of the First Chamber, acting as President, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Schiemann, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges,
u sastavu P. Jann, predsjednik prvog vijeća, u svojstvu predsjednika, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. Rosas i K. Schiemann, predsjednici vijeća, R. Schintgen (izvjestitelj), S. von Bahr, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet i M. Ilešič, suci,
Mr Mangold, by D. Hummel and B. Karthaus, Rechtsanwälte,
za W. Mangolda, D. Hummel i B. Karthaus, Rechtsanwälte,
Mr Helm, by himself, Rechtsanwalt,
za R. Helma, on osobno, Rechtsanwalt,
the German Government, by M. Lumma, acting as Agent,
za njemačku vladu, M. Lumma, u svojstvu agenta,
the Commission of the European Communities, by N. Yerrell and S. Grünheid and by D. Martin and H. Kreppel, acting as Agents,
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, N. Yerrell i S. Grünheid te D. Martin i H. Kreppel, u svojstvu agenata,