natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
11 By the same decisions, the Director of the RVV informed the appellants in the main proceedings of a number of measures designed to control the foot-and-mouth virus and to prevent it from spreading, including the vaccination, followed by the slaughter, of all biungulate animals on their holdings. Accordingly, those animals were vaccinated and then slaughtered.
11 Istim je odlukama ravnatelj RVV-a izvijestio tužitelje u glavnom postupku o nizu mjera osmišljenih u svrhu suzbijanja virusa slinavke i šapa i sprečavanja njegova širenja, uključujući cijepljenje, nakon čega slijedi klanje svih papkara na njihovim gospodarstvima. U skladu s time te su životinje cijepljene i potom zaklane.
13 For the purposes of contesting the validity of the statement that foot-and-mouth disease was suspected and, accordingly, the decisions of the Director of the RVV, the appellants in the main proceedings have put forward pleas in law claiming, in particular, that the authorities misinterpreted the definition of ‘animal suspected of being infected’, the clinical signs of the presence of foot-and-mouth disease and the procedures applying when blood samples are taken.
13 U svrhu osporavanja zakonitosti tvrdnje da je postojala sumnja na slinavku i šap te u skladu s time i odlukâ ravnatelja RVV-a, tužitelji u glavnom postupku istaknuli su tužbene razloge, tvrdeći osobito da su tijela pogrešno protumačila definiciju „životinje za koju se sumnja da je zaražena”, kliničke znakove prisutnosti slinavke i šapa te postupke koji se primjenjuju pri uzimanju uzoraka krvi.
14 The national court rejected all of those pleas. However, it pointed out that, in the related cases before it which gave rise to the judgment of the Court in Case C-28/05 Dokter and Others [2006] ECR I-5431, the validity of similar decisions had been challenged on the basis of different pleas in law, which had not been raised by the appellants in the main proceedings.
14 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev odbio je sve te razloge. Naglasio je, međutim, da je u povezanim predmetima koji su pred njim pokrenuti, a koji su doveli do presude Suda od 15. lipnja 2006., Dokter i dr. (C-28/05, Zb., str. I-5431.), zakonitost usporedivih odluka osporena na temelju drukčijih tužbenih razloga koje tužitelji u glavnom postupku nisu naveli.
15 Those pleas in law had claimed that the Director of the RVV was not entitled to take measures to control foot-and-mouth disease based on the result of tests carried out by ID-Lelystad, because the latter had not been authorised by Directive 85/511 to carry them out. Moreover, the Director was not entitled to base measures to control foot-and-mouth disease solely on the content of the facsimile sent by ID-Lelystad intimating the results of the laboratory testing. He ought to have asked for the file drawn up by the laboratory to be sent to him, have studied it and verified whether the tests had been correctly carried out.
15 U tim se tužbenim razlozima tvrdilo da ravnatelj RVV-a nema pravo poduzimati mjere suzbijanja slinavke i šapa na osnovi rezultata ispitivanja koje je proveo ID-Lelystad jer taj laboratorij nije Direktivom 85/511 bio ovlašten za njihovo provođenje. Osim toga, ravnatelj nije imao pravo temeljiti mjere za suzbijanje slinavke i šapa samo na sadržaju faksimila koji je dobio od ID-Lelystada, a u kojem su priopćeni rezultati laboratorijskog ispitivanja. Trebao je zatražiti da mu se pošalje dokument koji je sastavio laboratorij, proučiti ga i provjeriti jesu li ispitivanja ispravno provedena.
16 The College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven held that those pleas in law could also have an influence on the resolution of the current disputes in the main proceedings. However, because those pleas were not raised before it, the national rules of procedure prevent their being taken into account. Article 8:69 of the General Law on administrative judicial procedure provides that the court is to give its ruling solely on the basis of the issues which are put before it. While it is true that paragraph 2 of that article states that the court is to supplement the pleas in law of its own motion, that provision means, however, that the court is to put the objections made by the applicant against the contested administrative measure into legal form. A distinction falls to be made between that duty to supplement those pleas in law of the court’s own motion and the analysis which the court is required to make on its own initiative. Such an analysis is required only in cases involving the application of rules of public policy, that is to say rules relating to the powers of administrative bodies and those of the court itself, and provisions as to admissibility.
16 College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven utvrdio je da bi ti tužbeni razlozi mogli utjecati i na rješavanje predmetnih sporova u glavnom postupku. Međutim, kako ti razlozi nisu izneseni pred navedenim sudom, nacionalna postupovna pravila sprečavaju da ih se uzme u obzir. Člankom 8:69. Općeg zakona o upravnosudskom postupku predviđa se da sud mora donijeti odluku isključivo na osnovi pitanja iz spora koja su mu iznesena. Premda je točno da se u stavku 2. toga članka tvrdi kako sud nadopunjuje tužbene razloge po službenoj dužnosti, ta odredba, međutim, znači da sud stavlja u zakonski oblik prigovore koje je tužitelj iznio protiv osporavane upravne mjere. Treba napraviti razliku između dužnosti suda da nadopuni te tužbene razloge po službenoj dužnosti i ocjene koju sud treba izvršiti na vlastitu inicijativu. Takva se ocjena traži samo u slučajevima koji uključuju primjenu pravila javnog poretka, to jest pravila koja se odnose na ovlasti upravnih tijela i ovlasti samoga suda, te odredaba o dopuštenosti.
17 However, the national court is uncertain as to whether Community law requires it to take into consideration arguments based on that law which have not been put forward by the appellants in the main proceedings. The question arises whether a national procedural provision which means that the court cannot examine pleas in law which go beyond the ambit of the dispute renders the exercise of rights conferred by Community law virtually impossible or excessively difficult.
17 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev, međutim, nije siguran traži li se pravom Zajednice od njega da uzme u obzir argumente utemeljene na tom pravu koje tužitelji u glavnom postupku nisu istaknuli. Postavlja se pitanje je li, zbog nacionalne postupovne odredbe koja kaže da sud ne može ispitivati tužbene razloge koji izlaze izvan opsega spora, ostvarivanje pravâ koja se dodjeljuju pravnim poretkom Zajednice gotovo onemogućeno ili pretjerano otežano.
‘1. Does Community law require the courts of their own motion to conduct an examination, that is to say, an examination of grounds which are outside the terms of the dispute, by reference to criteria based on Directive 85/511?
„1. Traži li se pravom Zajednice od sudova da po službenoj dužnosti provedu nadzor - odnosno da nadzor provedu prema kriterijima koji se nalaze izvan predmeta spora - prema kriterijima utemeljenim na Direktivi 85/511?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the obligation on Member States under the first indent of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511, read in conjunction with the second indent of Article 13(1) thereof, to ensure that laboratory testing to detect the presence of foot-and-mouth disease is carried out by a laboratory listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511 have direct effect?
2. Ako je odgovor na prvo pitanje potvrdan: Ima li obveza država članica na temelju prve alineje članka 11. stavka 1. Direktive 85/511 u vezi s drugom alinejom njezina članka 13. stavka 1. da osigura da laboratorijsko ispitivanje kojim se otkriva prisutnost slinavke i šapa provodi laboratorij naveden u Prilogu B Direktivi 85/511 izravan učinak?
Is the purpose of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511 to protect the interests of individuals, such as the appellants in the main proceedings? If not, can individuals, such as the appellants in the main proceedings, plead possible failure to fulfil the obligations which this provision places on the authorities of the Member States?
Je li svrha članka 11. stavka 1. Direktive 85/511 zaštita interesa pojedinaca, kao što su tužitelji u glavnom postupku? Ako nije, mogu li se pojedinci, kao što su tužitelji u glavnom postupku, pozivati na moguće neispunjenje obveza koje se tom odredbom nalažu tijelima država članica?
(c) If the answer to Question 3(b) means that individuals can rely on Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511:
(c) Ako odgovor na pitanje 3.(b) znači da se pojedinci mogu pozivati na članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 85/511 […]:
4. Must Annex B to Directive 85/511 be interpreted, having regard to Articles 11 and 13 thereof, as meaning that the reference in Annex B to Directive 85/511 to “Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad” can or must refer also to [ID-Lelystad]?
4. Treba li Prilog B Direktivi 85/511, u pogledu njezinih članaka 11. i 13., tumačiti na način da upućivanje na „Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad” u Prilogu B Direktivi 85/511 može ili mora uključivati [ID-Lelystad]?
5. If it follows from the above answers that the presence of foot-and-mouth disease can be found by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511 or that Annex B to Directive 85/511 must be interpreted as meaning that the mention of the “Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad” can or must refer also to [ID-Lelystad]:
5. Ako iz gore navedenih odgovora slijedi da prisutnost slinavke i šapa može utvrditi laboratorij koji nije naveden u Prilogu B Direktivi 85/511 ili da Prilog B Direktivi 85/511 treba tumačiti tako da upućivanje na „Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad” može ili mora uključivati [ID-Lelystad]:
Must Directive 85/511 be interpreted as providing that the national administrative authority authorised to adopt decisions is bound by the outcome of an examination by a laboratory which is listed in Annex B to Directive 85/51 or – if the answer to Question 3(a) means that the administrative authority may base its foot-and-mouth disease control measures also on results obtained by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511 – by the results of the latter laboratory, or does the determination of final authority in that regard fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member State, so that the court before which the main proceedings are pending must examine whether the rules in that respect apply irrespective of whether the laboratory examination is carried out by virtue of a Community or national legal obligation and whether or not the application of the provisions of national procedural law renders the implementation of the Community rules excessively difficult or virtually impossible?
Treba li Direktivu 85/511 tumačiti u smislu da se njome predviđa da rezultati ispitivanja laboratorija koji je naveden u Prilogu B Direktivi 85/511 obvezuju nacionalno upravno tijelo ovlašteno za donošenje odluka ili – ako iz odgovora na pitanje 3.(a) proizlazi da upravno tijelo može temeljiti mjere suzbijanja slinavke i šapa i na rezultatima dobivenim od laboratorija koji nije naveden u Prilogu B Direktivi 85/511 – rezultatima potonjeg laboratorija, ili da je utvrđivanje konačne ovlasti u tom pogledu u okviru postupovne autonomije države članice tako da sud pred kojim se vodi glavni postupak mora ispitati primjenjuju li se pravila u tom pogledu neovisno o tome je li laboratorijsko ispitivanje provedeno na temelju zakonske obveze Zajednice ili nacionalne zakonske obveze i je li zbog primjene ili izostanka primjene odredaba nacionalnog postupovnog prava provedba pravila Zajednice pretjerano otežana ili gotovo onemogućena?
Are the national authorities bound unconditionally by the result of a foot-and-mouth disease examination carried out by a laboratory? If not, what margin of discretion does Directive 85/511 leave these national authorities?’
Obvezuju li rezultati ispitivanja slinavke i šapa koje je proveo laboratorij nacionalna tijela bezuvjetno? Ako ne, kolika se margina prosudbe ostavlja tim nacionalnim tijelima Direktivom 85/511?
21 Mr van der Weerd, Maatschap Van der Bijl, Mr Schoonhoven, Maatschap H. en J. van ’t Oever, Maatschap F. van ’t Oever en W. Fien, Mr van ’t Oever, Maatschap A. en J. Fien, Maatschap K. Koers en J. Stellingwerf, Ms Koers, Maatschap K. en G. Polinder and Mr van Wijhe (‘Mr van der Weerd and Others’) dispute the narrative which has been given of the course of the proceedings before the national court. They argue that they have raised Directive 89/511 as an issue before it and that the Court cannot accordingly consider Question 1.
21 J. van der Weerd, Maatschap Van der Bijl, J. W. Schoonhoven, Maatschap H. en J. van ’t Oever, Maatschap F. van ’t Oever en W. Fien, B. van ’t Oever, Maatschap A. en J. Fien, Maatschap K. Koers en J. Stellingwerf, H. Koers, Maatschap K. en G. Polinder i G. van Wijhe (u daljnjem tekstu: J. van der Weerd i dr.) osporavaju dano obrazloženje o tijeku postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev. Oni tvrde da su se pred tim sudom pozvali na Direktivu 89/511 i da prema tome Sud ne može uzeti u razmatranje prvo pitanje.
22 According to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of Community law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance (see Case C-300/01 Salzmann [2003] ECR I-4899, paragraphs 29 and 31). The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, inter alia, Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099, paragraph 39, and Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Cipolla and Others [2006] ECR I-0000, paragraph 25).
22 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, pitanja o tumačenju prava Zajednice koja uputi nacionalni sud unutar pravnog i činjeničnog okvira koji utvrđuje pod vlastitom odgovornošću i čiju točnost Sud nije dužan provjeravati, uživaju presumpciju relevantnosti (vidjeti presudu od 15. svibnja 2003., Salzmann, C-300/01, Zb., str. I-4899., t. 29. i 31.). Sud može odbaciti zahtjev koji je postavio nacionalni sud samo kada na očit način proizlazi da traženo tumačenje prava Unije nije ni u kakvom odnosu sa stvarnošću ili predmetom glavnog postupka, kada je problem hipotetske naravi ili kada Sud ne raspolaže činjeničnim i pravnim elementima koji su potrebni kako bi se na koristan način odgovorilo na pitanja koja su mu postavljena (vidjeti, između ostalog, presude od 13. ožujka 2001., PreussenElektra, C-379/98, Zb., str. I-2099., t. 39., i od 5. prosinca 2006., Cipolla i dr., C-94/04 i C-202/04, Zb., str. I-11421., t. 25.).
24 In the present case, Mr van der Weerd and Others claim that the national court wrongly took the view that pleas in law based on infringement of Directive 85/511 had not been raised before it. This is plainly a fact, the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine.
24 U predmetnom slučaju J. van der Weerd i dr. tvrde da je sud koji je uputio zahtjev pogriješio ocijenivši da pred njim nisu istaknuti tužbeni razlozi utemeljeni na povredi Direktive 85/511. Radi se upravo o činjenici čiju točnost Sud ne provjerava.
26 The same is true of the arguments put forward at the hearing by the Commission, which called into question the necessity for the national court to raise Question 1, having regard to the conclusions reached by the Court in the judgment in Dokter and Others. That judgment does not manifestly lead to the result that the answer of the Court in the present cases is irrelevant having regard to the decision which the national court is called upon to take.
26 Isto vrijedi i za argumente koje je na raspravi navela Komisija, a koji dovode u pitanje potrebu suda koji je uputio zahtjev da postavi prvo pitanje s obzirom na zaključke koje je Sud donio u presudi Dokter i dr. Iz te presude nije očito da odgovor Suda u ovim predmetima nije relevantan s obzirom na odluku koju je sud koji je uputio zahtjev pozvan donijeti.
28 It is clear from the case-law that, in the absence of Community rules in the field, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, secondly, that they do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Van Schijndel and van Veen [1995] ECR I-4705, paragraph 17, and Case C-129/00 Commission v Italy [2003] ECR I-14637, paragraph 25).
28 Iz sudske prakse proizlazi da je, u nedostatku propisa Zajednice u određenom području, na nacionalnom pravnom poretku svake države članice da odredi nadležne sudove i utvrdi postupovna pravila o pravnim sredstvima namijenjenima zaštiti pravâ koja pojedinci uživaju na temelju prava Zajednice, uz uvjet da, kao prvo, ta pravila nisu manje povoljna od onih koja uređuju slična pravna sredstva nacionalnog prava (načelo ekvivalentnosti) i, kao drugo, da u praksi ne onemogućavaju ili pretjerano otežavaju ostvarivanje pravâ koja se dodjeljuju pravnim poretkom Zajednice (načelo djelotvornosti) (presude od 14. prosinca 1995., Van Schijndel i van Veen, C-430/93 i C-431/93, Zb., str. I-4705., t. 17., i od 9. prosinca 2003., Komisija/Italija, C-129/00, Zb., str. I-14637., t. 25.).
29 As regards the principle of equivalence, it is clear from the order for reference that the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven is competent to raise of its own motion issues relating to the infringement of rules of public policy, which are construed in Dutch law as meaning issues concerning the powers of administrative bodies and those of the court itself, and provisions as to admissibility. Those rules lie at the very basis of the national procedures, since they define the conditions in which those procedures may be initiated and the authorities which have the power, within their area of responsibility, to determine the extent of the rights and obligations of individuals.
29 U pogledu načela ekvivalentnosti, iz odluke kojom se upućuje prethodno pitanje proizlazi da je College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven nadležan po službenoj dužnosti pokretati postupke koji se temelje na povredi pravila javnog poretka, koja se u nizozemskom pravu tumače kao pitanja koja se tiču ovlasti upravnih tijela i samoga suda, te odredbe o dopuštenosti. Na tim se pravilima temelje nacionalni postupci jer se njima utvrđuju uvjeti u kojima se ti postupci mogu pokrenuti i tijela koja su u okviru svoje nadležnosti ovlaštena za određivanje opsega prava i obveza pojedinaca.
30 The provisions of Directive 85/511 which are at issue do not occupy a similar position within the Community legal order. They govern neither the conditions in which procedures relating to the control of foot-and-mouth disease may be initiated nor the authorities which have the power, within their area of responsibility, to determine the extent of the rights and obligations of individuals.
30 Dotične odredbe Direktive 85/511 nemaju u pravnom poretku Zajednice usporediv značaj. Njima se ne uređuju ni uvjeti u kojima se mogu pokrenuti postupci povezani sa suzbijanjem slinavke i šapa ni tijela koja su u okviru svoje nadležnosti ovlaštena za određivanje opsega prava i obveza pojedinaca.
31 Those provisions cannot therefore be considered as being equivalent to the national rules of public policy referred to above. As a result, the application of the principle of equivalence does not mean, as regards the present cases, that the national court is obliged to conduct of its own motion an examination of the validity of the administrative measures in question by having regard to criteria based on Directive 85/511.
31 Stoga se ne može smatrati da su te odredbe ekvivalentne gore navedenim nacionalnim pravilima javnog poretka. Kao rezultat toga, u pogledu predmetnih slučajeva primjena načela ekvivalentnosti ne znači da je sud koji je uputio zahtjev obvezan po službenoj dužnosti provesti nadzor zakonitosti predmetnih upravnih akata uzimajući u obzir kriterije utemeljene na Direktivi 85/511.
33 As regards the principle of effectiveness, it is clear from the Court’s case-law that each case which raises the question whether a national procedural provision renders the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal order on individuals impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national instances. In that context, it is necessary to take into consideration, where relevant, the principles which lie at the basis of the national legal system, such as the protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of the proceedings (see, to that effect, Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck [1995] ECR I-4599, paragraph 14, and Van Schijndel and van Veen, paragraph 19).
33 U pogledu načela djelotvornosti, iz sudske prakse Suda proizlazi da se svaki slučaj u kojem se postavi pitanje onemogućuje li neka nacionalna procesnopravna odredba ili pretjerano otežava primjenu prava Unije treba ispitati uzimajući u obzir položaj te odredbe u cjelokupnom postupku, tijek postupka i njegove posebnosti pred različitim nacionalnim tijelima. U tom pogledu, valja, prema potrebi, uzeti u obzir načela na kojima se temelji nacionalni pravni sustav, kao što su zaštita prava na obranu, načelo pravne sigurnosti i dobrog odvijanja postupka pred različitim nacionalnim tijelima. U tom pogledu valja, prema potrebi, uzeti u obzir načela na kojima se temelji nacionalni pravni sustav, kao što su zaštita prava na obranu, načelo pravne sigurnosti i dobrog odvijanja postupka (vidjeti, u tom smislu, presude od 14. prosinca 1995., Peterbroeck, C-312/93, Zb., str. I-4599., t. 14., kao i Van Schijndel i van Veen, t. 19.).
35 The Court held that that limitation on the power of the national court was justified by the principle that, in a civil suit, it is for the parties to take the initiative, and that, as a result, the court is able to act of its own motion only in exceptional cases involving the public interest. That principle safeguards the rights of the defence and ensures the proper conduct of proceedings by, in particular, protecting them from the delays inherent in examination of new pleas (see, to that effect, Van Schijndel and van Veen, paragraph 21).
35 Sud je istaknuo da je ograničenje ovlasti nacionalnog suda opravdano načelom da u građanskim parnicama stranke imaju inicijativu i da sud stoga može djelovati po službenoj dužnosti samo u iznimnim slučajevima kada je to od javnog interesa. Tim se načelom čuvaju prava na obranu i osigurava dobro odvijanje postupka na način da ga se posebno štiti od odugovlačenja svojstvenog ispitivanju novih tužbenih razloga (vidjeti, u tom smislu, presudu Van Schijndel i van Veen, t. 21.).