natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(b) for three hours or more in the case of all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and of all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(b) za tri sata ili više za sve letove unutar Zajednice duže od 1500 km i za sve ostale letove između 1500 km i 3500 km; ili
(c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),
(c) za četiri sata ili više, u slučaju svih letova koji ne spadaju pod točke (a) ili (b),
passengers shall be offered by the operating air carrier:
zračni prijevoznik dužan je putnicima pružiti:
(i) the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2); and
(i) pomoć propisanu u članku 9. stavku 1. točki (a) i članku 9. stavku 2.; i
(ii) when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least the day after the time of departure previously announced, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and
(ii) kada je razumno očekivano vrijeme polaska najmanje dan nakon prethodno najavljenog vremena polaska, pomoć propisanu u članku 9. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. stavku 1. točki (c); i
(iii) when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance specified in Article 8(1)(a).
(iii) kada je kašnjenje leta najmanje pet sati, pomoć propisanu člankom 8. stavkom 1. točkom (a).
2. In any event, the assistance shall be offered within the time-limits set out above with respect to each distance bracket.'
2. U svakom slučaju, pomoć će se pružiti unutar gore propisanih vremenskih rokova, a s obzirom na svaku pojedinu kategoriju udaljenosti."
16 Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed `Right to compensation', provides:
16 Članak 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 naslovljen „Pravo na odštetu" glasi:
`1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to:
„1. Pozivanjem na ovaj članak, putnici ostvaruju pravo na odštetu u iznosu od:
(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less;
(a) 250 EUR za sve letove dužine do 1500 km;
(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres;
(b) 400 EUR za sve letove unutar Zajednice duže od 1500 km i za sve druge letove dužine između 1500 km i 3500 km;
(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).
(c) 600 EUR za sve letove koji ne spadaju pod točke (a) ili (b).
In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger's arrival after the scheduled time.
U određivanju udaljenosti, kao baza se uzima mjesto odredišta na koje će, zbog uskraćivanja ukrcaja ili otkazivanja leta, putnici stići s određenim vremenskim zakašnjenjem u odnosu na vrijeme dolaska predviđenim redom letenja.
2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked
2. Kada je putnicima ponuđeno preusmjeravanje do njihovog [krajnjeg] mjesta odredišta zamjenskim letom sukladno članku 8., i kad na taj način ostvareno vrijeme dolaska ne premašuje prvotno vrijeme dolaska leta [predviđeno vrijeme dolaska prvotno rezerviranog leta]:
(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less; or
(a) za 2 sata, u vezi s letovima dugim 1500 km ili kraće; [za dva sata, u slučaju svih letova dužine do 1500 km;] ili
(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(b) za 3 sata, u vezi sa svim letovima unutar Zajednice, dužih od 1500 km i u vezi sa svim ostalim letovima između 1500 km i 3500 km; [za tri sata, u slučaju svih letova unutar Zajednice dužih od 1500 km kao i u pogledu svih ostalih letova dužine između 1500 km i 3500 km;] ili
(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),
(c) za 4 sata, u vezi sa svim letovima koji ne spadaju pod točke (a) ili (b), [za četiri sata, u slučaju svih letova koji ne spadaju pod točke (a) ili (b),]
the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50%.
[stvarni] zračni prijevoznik može smanjiti visinu odštete predviđenu stavkom 1. za 50 %.
3. The compensation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be paid in cash, by electronic bank transfer, bank orders or bank cheques or, with the signed agreement of the passenger, in travel vouchers and/or other services.
3. Odšteta iz stavka 1. platit će [plaća] se u gotovini, elektronskim bankovnim transferom [elektroničkom bankovnom doznakom], bankovnim nalogom ili bankovnim čekovima ili, uz pisanu suglasnost putnika, [u] putnim vaučerima i/ili drugim uslugama.
4. The distances given in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be measured by the great circle route method.'
4. Udaljenosti iz stavaka 1. i 2. određuju se pomoću metode za određivanje rute preko velikog kruga ortodrome." 17 Članak 8. Uredbe br.
17 Article 8 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed `Right to reimbursement or re-routing', states:
261/2004 naslovljen „Pravo na vraćanje prevoznine ili preusmjeravanje" glasi kako slijedi:
`1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:
„1. Upućivanjem na ovaj članak, putnicima se nudi izbor između:
(a) - reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,
(a) nadoknade u roku od 7 dana, u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 3., cjelokupnog iznosa vrijednosti karte po cijeni po kojoj je kupljena, za dio ili dijelove putovanja koji nisu realizirani i za dio ili dijelove putovanja koji su već ostvareni, ako let više [ne] služi svrsi prvotnog plana putovanja putnika, zajedno sa, kada je to primjereno,
a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;
povratnim letom u prvu točku polazišta, kada je to najranije moguće;
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(b) preusmjeravanje, po sukladnim uvjetima prijevoza do njihovog konačnog odredišta prvom mogućom prilikom; ili
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.
(c) preusmjeravanje po sukladnim uvjetima prijevoza, do njihovog konačnog odredišta kasnijeg dana kako je putniku prihvatljivo, ovisno o dostupnosti slobodnih mjesta.
2. Paragraph 1(a) shall also apply to passengers whose flights form part of a package, except for the right to reimbursement where such right arises under Directive 90/314/EEC.
2. Stavak 1. točka (a) se također primjenjuje na putnike čiji letovi čine dio paketa, isključujući pravo na nadoknadu tamo gdje takvo pravo proizlazi iz Direktive 90/314/EEZ.
3. When, in the case where a town, city or region is served by several airports, an operating air carrier offers a passenger a flight to an airport alternative to that for which the booking was made, the operating air carrier shall bear the cost of transferring the passenger from that alternative airport either to that for which the booking was made, or to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger.'
3. Kada, u slučaju kada se mjesto, grad i regija služe s nekoliko zračnih luka, zračni prijevoznik nudi putniku let u zamjensku zračnu luku umjesto u onu za koju je let rezerviran, tada zračni prijevoznik snosi troškove transfera putnika iz te zamjenske zračne luke ili do ove za koju je izvršena rezervacija ili do drugog obližnjeg odredišta u dogovoru s putnikom."
18 Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed `Right to care', provides:
18 Članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 naslovljen „Pravo na skrb" glasi:
`1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge:
„1. Pozivanjem na ovaj članak, putnici ostvaruju pravo na besplatne::
(a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time;
(a) obroke i osvježavajuće napitke u razumnom odnosu s vremenom čekanja;
(b) hotel accommodation in cases
(b) smještaj u hotelu u slučajevima
where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary, or
kada je potrebno ostati jednu ili više noći, [ili]
where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary;
kada je potreban ostanak duži od onoga koji je putnik planirao; ili
(c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other).
(c) prijevoz između [od] zračne luke do mjesta smještaja (hotel i [ili] drugo).
2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.
2. Uz navedeno, putnici imaju pravo na dva besplatna telefonska poziva, telefaks poruke ili elektroničke poruke.
3. In applying this Article, the operating air carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them, as well as to the needs of unaccompanied children.'
3. U primjeni ovog članka, stvarni zračni prijevoznik posebno vodi računa o potrebama osoba sa smanjenom pokretljivošću i svim osobama u njihovoj pratnji, kao i o potrebama djece bez pratnje."
19 IATA is an association comprising 270 airlines from 130 countries, which carry 98% of scheduled international air passengers worldwide.
19 IATA je udruženje koje obuhvaća 270 zrakoplovnih kompanija iz 130 država koje obavljaju prijevoz 98 % putnika na redovnim međunarodnim zračnim linijama diljem svijeta.
ELFAA was established as an unincorporated association in January 2004 and represents the interests of 10 low-fare airlines from 9 European countries.
ELFAA je udruženje bez pravne osobnosti koje je osnovano u siječnju 2004. i koje zastupa interese deset niskotarifnih zrakoplovnih kompanija iz devet europskih država.
These two associations each brought before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), judicial review proceedings against the Department for Transport relating to the implementation of Regulation No 261/2004.
Ta dva udruženja pokrenula su pred High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) protiv Ministarstva prometa dva postupka za nadzor zakonitosti („judicial review") koji se odnose na provedbu Uredbe br. 261/2004.
20 The High Court of Justice, satisfied that the claimants' arguments were not without substance, decided to refer to the Court of Justice the seven questions put forward by them contesting the validity of Regulation No 261/2004.
20 Smatrajući da argumenti tužitelja u glavnom postupku nisu neosnovani, High Court of Justice je odlučio uputiti Sudu sedam pitanja koja su mu postavili tužitelji kako bi osporili valjanost Uredbe br. 261/2004.
Since the Department for Transport doubted that a reference on six of those questions was necessary as they did not, in its view, raise any real doubt as to the validity of the regulation, the High Court of Justice wished to ascertain what test had to be satisfied, or what threshold passed, before a question concerning the validity of a Community instrument had to be referred to the Court of Justice on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 234 EC.
Budući da je u pogledu šest od tih pitanja Ministarstvo prometa sumnjalo u nužnost njihova postavljanja jer, prema njegovu mišljenju, ta pitanja ne dovode u stvarnu sumnju valjanost navedene uredbe, High Court of Justice je želio utvrditi koji kriterij treba biti ispunjen, odnosno koji prag mora biti dosegnut prije nego što se Sudu na temelju drugog stavka članka 234. UEZ-a postavi pitanje o valjanosti akta Zajednice.
In those circumstances, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
U tim okolnostima High Court of Justice of England & Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) odlučio je prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja: „1. Je li članak 6.
`(1) Whether Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 is invalid on grounds that it is inconsistent with the ...
Uredbe br. 261/2004 nevaljan zbog toga što nije u skladu s [...]
Montreal Convention ..., and in particular Articles 19, 22 and 29 [thereof], and whether this (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?
Montrealskom konvencijom [...], a osobito njezinim člancima 19., 22. i 29. te utječe li ta činjenica (zajedno s bilo kojim drugim relevantnim elementom) na valjanost te uredbe u cjelini?
(2) Whether the amendment of Article 5 of the Regulation during consideration of the draft text by the Conciliation Committee was done in a manner that is inconsistent with the procedural requirements provided for in Article 251 EC and, if so, whether Article 5 of the Regulation is invalid and, if so, whether this (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?
2. Je li Odbor za mirenje, razmatrajući nacrt teksta, izmijenio članak 5. Uredbe [br. 261/2004] na način koji nije u skladu s postupovnim zahtjevima predviđenima člankom 251. UEZ-a i, ako da, je li članak 5. [te] uredbe nevaljan i, ako da, utječe li ta činjenica (zajedno s bilo kojim drugim relevantnim elementom) na valjanost te uredbe u cjelini?
(3) Whether Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 (or part thereof) are invalid on grounds that they are inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty, and if so whether this invalidity (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?
3. Jesu li članci 5. i 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 (u cijelosti ili djelomično) nevaljani zbog toga što nisu u skladu s načelom pravne sigurnosti i, ako da, utječe li ta nevaljanost (zajedno s bilo kojim drugim relevantnim elementom) na valjanost te uredbe u cjelini?
(4) Whether Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 (or part thereof) are invalid on grounds that they are not supported by any or any adequate reasoning, and if so whether this invalidity (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?
4. Jesu li članci 5. i 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 (u cijelosti ili djelomično) nevaljani zbog toga što nisu obrazloženi ili nisu dovoljno obrazloženi i, ako da, utječe li ta nevaljanost (zajedno s bilo kojim drugim relevantnim elementom) na valjanost te uredbe u cjelini?
(5) Whether Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 (or part thereof) are invalid on grounds that they are inconsistent with the principle of proportionality required of any Community measure, and if so whether this invalidity (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?
5. Jesu li članci 5. i 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 (u cijelosti ili djelomično) nevaljani zbog toga što nisu u skladu s načelom proporcionalnosti koje je primjenjivo na svako djelovanje [europske] Zajednice i, ako da, utječe li ta nevaljanost (zajedno s bilo kojim drugim relevantnim elementom) na valjanost te uredbe u cjelini?
(6) Whether Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 (or part thereof) are invalid on grounds that they discriminate, in particular, against the members of the second Claimant organisation in a manner that is arbitrary or not objectively justified, and if so whether this invalidity (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?
6. Jesu li članci 5. i 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 (u cijelosti ili djelomično) nevaljani zbog toga što se njima samovoljno i objektivno neutemeljeno diskriminiraju osobito članovi udruženja koje je drugotuženik i, ako da, utječe li ta nevaljanost (zajedno s bilo kojim drugim relevantnim elementom) na valjanost te uredbe u cjelini?
(7) Is Article 7 of the Regulation (or part thereof) void or invalid on grounds that the imposition of a fixed liability in the event of flight cancellation for reasons that are not covered by the extraordinary circumstances defence is discriminatory, fails to meet the standards of proportionality required of any Community measure, or is not based on any adequate reasoning, and if so whether this invalidity (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?
7. Je li članak 7. te uredbe ništetan ili nevaljan (u cijelosti ili djelomično) zato što je unaprijed utvrđena odgovornost u slučaju otkazivanja leta zbog razloga koji nisu obuhvaćeni izuzećem od odgovornosti zbog izvanrednih okolnosti diskriminirajuća, zato što ne zadovoljava kriterije proporcionalnosti koji vrijede u pogledu svake mjere Zajednice, odnosno nije dovoljno obrazložena i, ako da, utječe li ta nevaljanost (zajedno s bilo kojim drugim relevantnim elementom) na valjanost te uredbe u cjelini?
(8) In circumstances where a national court has granted permission to bring a claim in that national court, which raises questions as to the validity of provisions of a Community instrument and which it considers is arguable and not unfounded, are there any principles of Community law in connection with any test or threshold which the national court should apply when deciding under [the second paragraph of Article 234] EC whether to refer those questions of validity to the [Court of Justice of the European Communities]?'
8. Postoje li, u slučaju kada nacionalni sud dopusti da se pred njim podigne tužba kojom se u pogledu valjanosti odredaba nekog akta Zajednice postavljaju pitanja za koja nacionalni sud smatra da ih je moguće opravdati i da nisu neutemeljena, načela prava Zajednice koja se odnose na kriterij ili prag koji nacionalni sud mora primijeniti kada odlučuje hoće li na temelju [drugog stavka] članka 234. UEZ-a Sudu uputiti ta pitanja o valjanosti?"
21 By order of the President of the Court of 24 September 2004, the referring court's request that the accelerated procedure provided for in the first paragraph of Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure be applied to the present case was rejected.
21 Rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 24. rujna 2004. zahtjev suda koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku da se o dotičnom predmetu odluči u ubrzanom postupku predviđenom člankom 104.a prvim stavkom Poslovnika odbijen je.
The questions
O prethodnim pitanjima
Question 8
Osmo pitanje
22 By its eighth question, which it is appropriate to examine first, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the second paragraph of Article 234 EC is to be interpreted as requiring a national court to refer a question as to the validity of a Community act to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling only if there is more than a certain degree of doubt concerning its validity.
22 Svojim osmim pitanjem, koje valja razmotriti prvo, sud koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku u biti pita treba li članak 234. drugi stavak UEZ-a tumačiti tako da se njime od nacionalnog suda zahtijeva da Sudu postavi prethodno pitanje o valjanosti akta Zajednice samo u slučaju kada postoji određeni stupanj sumnje u vezi s njegovom valjanošću.
23 The European Parliament contends that the question is inadmissible since no answer which the Court might provide to the question would be of any assistance for the decision in the case before the referring court, which relates to the validity of Regulation No 261/2004.
23 Europski parlament tvrdi da je pitanje nedopušteno jer odgovor koji bi Sud na njega mogao dati nije ni od kakve koristi za odlučivanje u sporu pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku, a koji se odnosi na valjanost Uredbe br. 261/2004.
24 It is settled case-law that a reference from a national court may be refused only if it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or to its purpose, or where the problem is hypothetical or 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-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 61; Case C-105/94 Celestini [1997] ECR I-2971, paragraph 22; and Case C-355/97 Beckand Bergdorf [1999] ECR I-4977, paragraph 22).
24 U tom pogledu, iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da je zahtjev nacionalnog suda moguće odbiti samo ako je očito da traženo tumačenje prava Zajednice nema nikakve veze sa stvarnim stanjem ili predmetom glavnog postupka, ako je pitanje hipotetske naravi ili ako Sud ne raspolaže činjeničnim i pravnim elementima potrebnima kako bi na koristan način odgovorio na pitanja koja su mu postavljena (vidjeti osobito presude od 15. prosinca 1995., Bosman, C-415/93, Zb., str. I-4921., t. 61.; od 5. lipnja 1997., Celestini, C-105/94, Zb., str. I-2971., t. 22. i od 7. rujna 1999., Beck i Bergdorf, C-355/97, Zb., str. I-4977., t. 22.).
Save for such cases, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a preliminary ruling on questions concerning the interpretation of Community law (see Bosman, paragraph 59).
Osim u tim slučajevima, Sud je u načelu obvezan odlučiti o prethodnim pitanjima koja se tiču tumačenja prava Zajednice (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu Bosman, t. 59.).
25 In the main proceedings, when the claimants contested the validity of Regulation No 261/2004 before the referring court the question arose for the latter as to whether that challenge to the regulation's validity warranted a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling as provided in Article 234 EC.
25 Kada su u glavnom postupku tužitelji osporavali valjanost Uredbe br. 261/2004 pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku, taj se sud zapitao opravdava li to osporavanje valjanosti navedene uredbe da se Sudu uputi zahtjev za prethodnu odluku, kako je to predviđeno člankom 234. UEZ-a.
Accordingly, the interpretation of that article which the referring court seeks by means of the present question cannot be considered to bear no relation to the purpose of the main action.
Ne treba smatrati da tumačenje spomenutog članka koje sud koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku tim pitanjem traži nije ni u kakvoj vezi s predmetom glavnog postupka.
The fact that the referring court has at the same time also referred to the Court questions concerning the validity of Regulation No 261/2004 and that the answers which will be provided to them may dispose of the main proceedings cannot call into question the relevance which the question on the interpretation of Article 234 EC possesses in itself.
Činjenica da je sud koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku istodobno Sudu također postavio pitanja koja se tiču valjanosti Uredbe br. 261/2004 i da odgovori koji će na njih biti dani mogu biti odlučni za rješenje glavnog postupka ne može dovesti u pitanje relevantnost koju pitanje o tumačenju članka 234. UEZ-a samo po sebi ima.
26 The question asked should therefore be answered.
26 Zato na postavljeno pitanje valja odgovoriti.
Substance
Meritum
27 It is settled case-law that national courts do not have the power to declare acts of the Community institutions invalid.
27 Valja podsjetiti da prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi nacionalni sudovi nemaju ovlast proglasiti nevaljanim akte institucija Zajednice.
The main purpose of the jurisdiction conferred on the Court by Article 234 EC is to ensure that Community law is applied uniformly by national courts.
Osnovni je smisao ovlasti koje su Sudu dodijeljene člankom 234. UEZ-a osigurati da nacionalni sudovi ujednačeno primjenjuju pravo Zajednice.
That requirement of uniformity is particularly vital where the validity of a Community act is in question.
Ovaj zahtjev ujednačenosti osobito je važan kad se ocjenjuje valjanost akta Zajednice.