natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
26 According to the decisions for reference, in the three sets of criminal proceedings in the main cases, the offences which the accused are alleged to have committed were carried out while the former Article 2621 of the Italian Civil Code was in force, and thus prior to the entry into force of Legislative Decree No 61/2002 and the new Articles 2621 and 2622 of that code.
26 Iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da su, u tri kaznena postupka iz glavnih postupaka, povrede koje se stavljaju na teret tuženicima navodno počinjene dok je na snazi bio članak 2621. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika, tj. prije stupanja na snagu Zakonodavne uredbe br. 61/2002 i novih članaka 2621. i 2622. tog zakonika.
27 In Case C-387/02, the guidice per le indagini preliminari (judge responsible for preliminary investigations) of the Tribunale di Milano (Milan District Court) referred, by decision of 26 November 1999, the case against Mr Berlusconi to the First Criminal Chamber of that court.
27 U predmetu C-387/02 guidice per le indagini preliminari (sudac prethodne istrage) suda Tribunale di Milano uputio je predmet protiv S. Berlusconija odlukom od 26. studenoga 1999. prvom kaznenom vijeću toga suda.
The charge brought against the accused was that he had, between 1986 and 1989, drawn up false documents relating to the annual accounts of the company Fininvest SpA and of other companies in the group of that name in his capacity as chairman of Fininvest and reference shareholder in the companies belonging to that group.
Tuženiku se stavlja na teret da je između 1986. i 1989. unosio neistinite podatke u godišnje financijske izvještaje društva Fininvest SpA i drugih društava unutar istoimene grupe kao predsjednik društva Fininvest i većinski dioničar društava iz navedene grupe.
Those false documents, it was claimed, had made it possible to increase hidden reserves earmarked for the financing of certain allegedly unlawful transactions.
Tvrdilo se da su ti neistiniti podaci omogućili povećanje skrivenih rezervi namijenjenih financiranju nekih navodno nezakonitih operacija.
28 According to the decision for reference in Case C-403/02, proceedings are at present pending against Messrs Dell'Utri, Luzi and Comincioli before the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the Tribunale di Milano in respect of the preparation of false balance sheets up to 1993.
28 Iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku u predmetu C-403/02 proizlazi da su u tijeku postupci protiv M. Dell'Utrija, R. Luzija i R. Cominciolija pred četvrtim kaznenim vijećem na Tribunale di Milano zbog izrade lažnih bilanci do 1993.
29 Case C-391/02 has its origin in the appeal brought by Mr Adelchi against the judgment handed down on 9 January 2001 by the Tribunale di Lecce (Lecce District Court) finding him guilty of publishing false documentation in respect of the companies Nuova Adelchi Srl and Calzaturificio Adelchi Srl, of which he was the sole manager.
29 Predmet C-391/02 počeo je žalbom koju je podnio S. Adelchi protiv presude koju je 9. siječnja 2001. donio Tribunale di Lecce (okružni sud Lecce) proglasivši ga krivim za objavu neistinitih podataka o društvima Nuova Adelchi Srl i Calzaturificio Adelchi Srl, u kojima je on bio jedini direktor.
Those acts, which had been committed in 1992 and 1993, related to allegedly fictitious export and import customs transactions and to the issuing, by those companies, of invoices that were alleged to be false.
Ta djela, koja su bila počinjena 1992. i 1993., odnosila su se na navodno fiktivne izvozne i uvozne carinske postupke i na izdavanje navodno lažnih računa tih društava.
The inevitable result was to indicate in the balance sheets of those companies costs which were higher than the real costs and purely notional receipts, and, consequently, a turnover that diverged from the true turnover.
Neizbježan rezultat je bio navesti u bilanci tih društava troškove koji su bili veći od stvarnih troškova i fiktivne primitke te, posljedično, promet koji je odstupao od stvarnog prometa.
30 Following the entry into force of Legislative Decree No 61/2002, the accused parties in those three sets of proceedings argued that the new Articles 2621 and 2622 of the Italian Civil Code ought to be applied to them.
30 Nakon stupanja na snagu Zakonodavne uredbe br. 61/2002, tuženici u ta tri postupka smatrale su da se na njih trebaju primijeniti novi članci 2621. i 2622. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika.
31 The national courts making the references point out that the effect of applying those new provisions would be that a criminal prosecution in respect of the acts, initially charged as constituting the indictable offence referred to in the former Article 2621 of the Italian Civil Code, could no longer be brought for the following reasons.
31 Sudovi koji su uputili zahtjeve napominju da bi posljedica primjene tih novih odredbi značila da se kazneni postupak za ta djela, za koja se prvotno smatralo da predstavljaju kaznena djela iz bivšeg članka 2621. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika, ne bi više mogao pokrenuti iz razloga koji slijede.
32 First, if proceedings may, in principle, be brought ex officio against acts, and thus in the absence of a complaint, by the public prosecuting authorities on the basis of the new Article 2621 of the Italian Civil Code, that offence would from that point on be a summary offence and consequently subject to a maximum limitation period of four and a half years and would no longer be the indictable offence, having a maximum limitation period of seven and a half years, which was set out in the former Article 2621 of the Italian Civil Code.
32 Prvo, ako se postupak protiv djela može načelno pokrenuti po službenoj dužnosti te stoga bez prijave od strane državnog odvjetništva na temelju novog članka 2621. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika, ta se povreda od tog trenutka nadalje smatra prekršajem i posljedično podliježe maksimalnom roku zastare od četiri i pol godine te nije više kazneno djelo, s maksimalnim rokom zastare od sedam i pol godina, kako je predviđeno bivšim člankom 2621. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika.
In the cases in the main proceedings, the offence referred to in the new Article 2621 of the Italian Civil Code is, according to those national courts, absolutely time-barred.
U slučajevima iz glavnog postupka, povreda iz novog članka 2621. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika nedvojbeno je zastarjela.
33 Second, according to those courts, that change in the classification of the offence also means that the related offences, such as criminal conspiracy, money laundering or unlawful receipt of funds, may no longer give rise to criminal prosecutions as those offences are linked to the prior existence of an indictable offence and not to that of a summary offence.
33 Drugo, prema mišljenju tih sudova, ta izmjena kvalifikacije povrede također znači da nije moguće kazneno progoniti slične povrede, kao što su kriminalno udruživanje, pranje novca ili nezakonito primanje sredstava, jer su ta kaznena djela vezana uz prethodno postojanje kaznenog djela, a ne prekršaja.
34 Third, if, in regard to the indictable offence set out in the new Article 2622 of the Italian Civil Code, the acts in issue in the main proceedings were not yet time-barred, they could not give rise to prosecutions under that article in the absence of a complaint from a member or a creditor who regarded himself as having been adversely affected by the false documentation, the lodging of a complaint being in fact a necessary precondition for the bringing of proceedings under that provision if, in any event, as has been pointed out in the criminal proceedings in issue in the main cases, the false documentation related to companies that are not quoted on the stock exchange.
34 Treće, ako u pogledu kaznenih djela iz novog članka 2622. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika djela koja su predmet u glavnom postupku još nisu zastarjela, ona ne mogu biti razlog pokretanja kaznenog progona na temelju toga članka ako nema prijave člana ili vjerovnika koji smatra da je pretrpio štetu zbog neistinitih podataka, jer je podnošenje prijave potreban preduvjet za pokretanje kaznenog progona na temelju te odredbe barem u slučaju, kako je bilo naglašeno u kaznenim postupcima koji su predmet glavnog postupka, kada se neistiniti podaci odnose na društva koja ne kotiraju na burzi vrijednosnih papira.
35 Finally, those courts point out that prosecutions brought in respect of the acts in question might also come up against the thresholds laid down, in identical terms, in the new Articles 2621, third and fourth paragraphs, and 2622, fifth and sixth paragraphs, of the Italian Civil Code, which exclude any penalty for false accounting which has no significant effect and is of minimal importance, that is to say, false accounting which, inter alia, results only in a variation either of the pre-tax financial results for a period of not more than 5%, or a variation of the net assets of not more than 1%.
35 Naposljetku, ti sudovi naglašavaju da bi kazneni progon pokrenut za predmetna djela mogao biti u suprotnosti s ograničenjima koja su na identičan način određena u trećem i četvrtom stavku novoga članka 2621. i u petom i šestom stavku novoga članka 2622. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika, koji isključuju kaznu za lažno prikazivanje stanja u poslovnim knjigama s nebitnim ili minimalnim posljedicama, tj., posebno, čija je jedina posljedica odstupanje koje iznosi najviše 5 % godišnjih financijskih rezultata prije oporezivanja ili odstupanje u neto imovini koje iznosi najviše 1 %.
36 In the light of those considerations, the national courts making the references, in the same way as the public prosecuting authorities, take the view that the proceedings in the present cases raise questions as to whether or not the penalties provided for under the new Articles 2621 and 2622 of the Italian Civil Code are appropriate when considered in the light of, either, Article 6 of the First Companies Directive, as interpreted by the Court in, inter alia, Case C-97/96 Daihatsu Deutschland [1997] ECR I-6843, or Article 5 of the Treaty, from which, according to case-law which has been well established since Case 68/88 Commission v Greece [1989] ECR 2965, paragraphs 23 and 24, it follows that penalties for infringements of provisions of Community law must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
36 Vodeći računa o tim razmatranjima, sudovi koji su uputili zahtjeve i državno odvjetništvo smatraju da se ti postupci odnose na pitanja jesu li sankcije iz novih članaka 2621. i 2622. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika odgovarajuće ili ne s obzirom na članak 6. Prve direktive o trgovačkim društvima, kako ga tumači Sud posebno u presudi od 4. prosinca 1997., Daihatsu Deutschland (C-97/96, Zb., str. I-6843.) ili s obzirom na članak 5. Ugovora iz kojega u skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom od presude od 21. rujna 1989., Komisija/Grčka (68/88, Zb., str. 2965., t. 23. i 24.) proizlazi da sankcije za povredu odredbi prava Zajednice moraju biti učinkovite, razmjerne i odvraćajuće.
37 It was in those circumstances that, in Case C-387/02, the Tribunale di Milano decided to stay proceedings and to refer to the Court for a preliminary ruling a number of questions, which, in the light of the grounds given for the decision to refer, may be understood in the following terms:
37 U tim je okolnostima Tribunale di Milano u predmetu C-387/02 odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu prethodna pitanja, koja se s obzirom na obrazloženje zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku mogu shvatiti na sljedeći način:
(1) Does Article 6 of the First Companies Directive concern not only cases of failure to publish information relating to companies but also cases in which false information on companies is published?
1. Primjenjuje li se članak 6. Prve direktive o trgovačkim društvima i u slučaju objavljivanja neistinitih informacija o trgovačkim društvima, a ne samo u slučaju njihovog neobjavljivanja?
(2) Is compliance with the requirement of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness which penalties for infringement of Community provisions must satisfy to be assessed in regard to the nature or type of penalty considered in the abstract, or rather in regard to its application in practice having regard to the structural characteristics of the legal system within which it takes effect?
2. Treba li poštovanje zahtjeva za učinkovitim, razmjernim i odvraćajućim sankcijama u slučaju povrede odredbi Zajednice procijeniti s obzirom na prirodu ili vrstu apstraktno predviđene sankcije ili s obzirom na njezinu konkretnu primjenu, uzimajući u obzir strukturne karakteristike pravnog sustava unutar kojeg se primjenjuje?
(3) Are the principles set out in the Fourth and Seventh Companies Directives to be interpreted as precluding national legislation setting thresholds below which inaccurate statements in annual accounts and annual reports relating to public limited companies, limited partnerships and private limited companies are not punishable?
3. Treba li načela iz Četvrte i Sedme direktive o trgovačkim društvima tumačiti tako da su protivne nacionalnom zakonodavstvu koje određuje ograničenja unutar kojih su neistiniti podaci iz godišnjih financijskih izvještaja i godišnjih izvješća dioničkih društava, komanditnih dioničkih društava i društava s ograničenom odgovornošću irelevantni?
38 In Case C-391/02, the Corte d'appello di Lecce (Lecce Appeal Court) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
38 U predmetu C-391/02, Corte d'appello di Lecce (Prizivni sud Lecce) odlučio je prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`(1) With reference to the duty of each Member State to adopt "appropriate penalties" for the infringements established by Directives 65/151 and 78/660, must the directives themselves and in particular the combined provisions of Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which, in amending the system of penalties already in force in respect of company law offences concerning the infringement of the obligations imposed in order to safeguard the principle of public and accurate information on companies, lays down a system of sanctions which in the specific instance is not informed by the criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of the sanctions imposed in order to ensure that that principle is upheld?
„1. S obzirom na obvezu svake države članice da donese ,odgovarajuće sankcije' za povrede utvrđene [Direktivom 68/151 i Direktivom 78/660], treba li te direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a [...] u vezi s člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (f) i člankom 6. Direktive 68/151 te člankom 2. stavcima 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605, [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji prilikom izmjene sustava sankcija, koji je već bio na snazi u pogledu povreda prava društava u smislu kršenja obveza uvedenih radi zaštite načela javnog i točnog informiranja o društvima, utvrđuje sustav sankcija koji ne ispunjava konkretno kriterije učinkovitosti, razmjernosti i odvraćajućeg karaktera sankcija, koji osiguravaju takvu zaštitu?
(2) Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which does not make it a punishable offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning disclosure and the provision of accurate information on certain company documents (including the balance sheet and the profit and loss account) where the disclosure of false company accounts or the failure to provide information result in a distortion of the financial results for a given period, or a distortion in the net assets, which does not exceed a certain percentage threshold?
2. Treba li gore navedene direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a [...], u vezi s člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (f) i člankom 6. Direktive 68/151 te člankom 2. stavcima 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605), [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji isključuje uvođenje kaznenog progona za društva koja krše obvezu objave i davanja točnih podataka o određenim aktima društva (uključujući bilancu i račun dobiti i gubitka) kada prikaz nepravilne bilance ili izostavljanje podataka uzrokuju odstupanja u financijskim rezultatima za dano razdoblje ili u neto imovini, koja ne prelaze određeni postotni prag?
(3) Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which does not make it a punishable offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning disclosure and the provision of accurate information where statements are made which, although aimed at deceiving members or the public with a view to securing an unjust profit, are the consequence of estimated valuations which, taken individually, depart from actual values to an extent not greater than a certain threshold?
3. Treba li gore navedene direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a [...], u vezi s člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (f) i člankom 6. Direktive 68/151 te člankom 2. stavcima 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605, [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji isključuje kazneni progon za društva koja krše obvezu objave i davanja točnih podataka koji su, iako im je cilj prevariti članove ili javnost radi ostvarivanja nezakonite dobiti, posljedica procjena koje, ako se gledaju pojedinačno, odstupaju od stvarne vrijednosti za iznos koji nije veći od utvrđenog praga?
(4) Irrespective of progressive limits or thresholds, must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which does not make it a punishable offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning disclosure and the provision of accurate information where the false statements or the fraudulent omissions and, thus, the disclosures and statements which do not give a true and fair view of the company's assets and liabilities and financial position do not distort "to an appreciable extent" the company's assets, liabilities and financial position (even though it is for the national legislature to define the concept of "appreciable distortion")?
4. Neovisno o progresivnim ograničenjima ili pragovima, treba li direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a [...], u vezi s člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (f) i člankom 6. Direktive 68/151 te člankom 2. stavcima 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605, [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji isključuje kazneni progon za društva koja krše obvezu objave i davanja točnih podataka, kada netočni podaci ili njihovo izostavljanje s ciljem prijevare te, u svakom slučaju, navodi i podaci koji lažno prikazuju imovinsko i financijsko stanje društva te njegov poslovni uspjeh ,osjetno' ne narušavaju imovinsko ili financijsko stanje društva (iako je na nacionalnom zakonodavcu da definira pojam ,osjetnog narušavanja')?
(5) Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which, in response to an infringement by companies of those obligations concerning disclosure and the provision of accurate information imposed on them in order to safeguard "the interests of both members and third parties", allows only members and creditors to seek imposition of a penalty, thereby excluding third parties from any general and effective protection?
5. Treba li navedene direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a, članka 2. stavka 1. točke (f) i članka 6. Direktive 68/151 te članka 2. stavaka 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605, [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji u slučaju kršenja navedenih obveza koje trgovačko društvo ima u pogledu objave i davanja točnih podataka kako bi se zaštitili ,interesi kako članova tako i trećih strana' dozvoljava samo članovima i vjerovnicima da zahtijevaju uvođenje sankcija, što znači da je trećim osobama uskraćena bilo kakva opća i učinkovita zaštita?
(6) Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which, in response to the infringement by companies of those obligations concerning disclosure and the provision of accurate information imposed on them in order to safeguard "the interests of both members and third parties", provides for prosecutory machinery and a system of sanctions which are markedly differentiated, whereby the possibility of the imposition of a punishment upon complaint being made, together with more serious and effective penalties, is reserved solely for infringements occasioning loss to members and creditors?'
6. Treba li gore navedene direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a [...], članka 2. stavka 1. točke (f) i članka 6. Direktive 68/151 te članka 2. stavaka 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605, [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji u slučaju kršenja navedenih obveza koje trgovačko društvo ima u pogledu objave i davanja točnih podataka kako bi se zaštitili ,interesi kako članova tako i trećih strana', predviđa mehanizam uvođenja kaznenog progona i sustava sankcija koji su posebno diferencirani, čime je mogućnost uvođenja kaznenog progona na temelju prijave, zajedno s ozbiljnijim i učinkovitijim sankcijama, rezervirana isključivo za povrede koje su prouzročile gubitak članovima ili vjerovnicima?ˮ
39 In Case C-403/02, the Tribunale di Milano decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
39 U predmetu C-403/02, Tribunale di Milano je odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja: „1. Može li se članak 6.
`(1) May Article 6 of Directive 68/151 be understood as requiring Member States to establish appropriate penalties not only for non-disclosure by commercial companies of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts but also for false disclosure of such documents, of other company documents addressed to members or to the public, or of any information on a company's assets and liabilities, and economic and financial situation which the company is required to provide in relation to itself or to the group of which it forms part?
Direktive 68/151 [...] razumjeti tako da obvezuje države članice da utvrde odgovarajuće sankcije za trgovačka društva ne samo za neobjavljivanje bilance i računa dobiti i gubitka već i za falsificiranje takvih dokumenata i drugih obavijesti društva namijenjenih članovima ili javnosti, ili svih drugih podataka o ekonomskom, imovinskom ili financijskom stanju društva koje društvo mora objaviti o sebi ili o grupi društava kojoj pripada?