natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
24 It follows, however, from reading Article 26 and the second subparagraph of 28(1) of Directive 2002/21 that the legislature did not intend to prejudice the rights and obligations arising under Directive 97/13 and that Directive 2002/21 applies only to legal situations arising from 25 July 2003.
24 Međutim iz članka 26. i drugog podstavka članka 28. stavka 1. Direktive 2002/21 proizlazi da zakonodavac nije želio utjecati na prava i obveze koje je uvela Direktiva 97/13 i da se Direktiva 2002/21 primjenjuje samo na pravne situacije nastale od 25. srpnja 2003.
25 Consequently, despite the fact that Directive 97/13 was repealed by Directive 2002/21, the validity of a charge such as that imposed on i-21 and Arcor by the fee assessments of 14 June 2000 and 18 May 2001 respectively, at a time when Directive 2002/21 was not yet applicable, has to be examined in the light of Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13.
25 Prema tome, unatoč činjenici da je Direktiva 97/13 stavljena izvan snage Direktivom 2002/21, valjanost naknade kao što je naknada nametnuta društvima i-21 i Arcor odlukama o visini naknade od 14. lipnja 2000. odnosno 18. svibnja 2001., u vrijeme kad Direktiva 2002/21 još nije bila na snazi, valja preispitati s obzirom na članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 97/13.
26 It is also necessary to establish whether the concept of `administrative costs' referred to in that article covers the general administrative costs arising from individual licensing regimes, calculated over a period of 30 years.
26 Također treba ustanoviti obuhvaća li pojam „Upravni troškoviˮ iz tog članka opće upravne troškove koji proizlaze iz sustava pojedinačnih dozvola i izračunavaju se za razdoblje od 30 godina.
27 The Court has already had an opportunity to examine the scope of Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13.
27 Sud je već imao priliku ispitati doseg članka 11. stavka 1. Direktive 97/13.
28 In Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01 Albacom and Infostrada [2001] ECR I-9449, paragraph 25, the Court pointed out that Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 provides that Member States are to ensure that any fees imposed on undertakings which hold individual licences seek only to cover the administration costs generated by the work involved in implementing those licences.
28 U presudi od 18. rujna 2003. u spojenim predmetima Albacom i Infostrada (C-292/01 i C-293/01, Zb., str. I‑9449., t. 25.) Sud je upozorio da članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 97/13 predviđa da države članice moraju osigurati da sve naknade nametnute poduzetnicima koji su vlasnici pojedinačnih dozvola pokrivaju samo upravne troškove povezane s radom koji je potreban za izradu tih dozvola.
29 It is clear from the wording of that provision, as interpreted by the Court in paragraph 25 of Albacom and Infostrada, cited above, that that work must relate only to four activities, namely the issue, management, control and enforcement of individual licences.
29 Iz teksta te odredbe, kako je tumači Sud u točki 25. gore navedene presude Albacom i Infostrada, proizlazi da se taj rad mora odnositi samo na četiri aktivnosti u vezi s pojedinačnim dozvolama, odnosno na izdavanje, upravljanje, kontrolu i uporabu.
Furthermore, the fee must be proportionate to the work involved and be published in an appropriate and sufficiently detailed manner, so as to render the information readily accessible.
Osim toga, naknada mora biti proporcionalna utrošenom radu i objavljena na odgovarajući način i dovoljno detaljno kako bi informacije bile lako dostupne.
30 These requirements meet the objectives of proportionality, transparency and non-discrimination of the individual licensing regimes referred to in the second recital in the preamble to Directive 97/13.
30 Ti su zahtjevi u skladu s ciljevima proporcionalnosti, transparentnosti i nediskriminacije sustava za izdavanje pojedinačnih dozvola iz druge uvodne izjave Direktive 97/13.
31 It is thus necessary to establish whether the method of calculating the fee at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of taking into account the general costs over a period of 30 years generated by implementing the individual licences, is in line with the provisions of Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 read in the light of those objectives.
31 Stoga valja provjeriti je li metoda izračuna naknade o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku, u kojoj se uzimaju u obzir opći troškovi za izradu pojedinačnih dozvola za razdoblje od 30 godina, u skladu s odredbama članka 11. stavka 1. Direktive 97/13 tumačenima u svjetlu tih ciljeva.
32 In this respect, it should be pointed out, first of all, that the concept of administrative costs is sufficiently wide to cover so-called `general' administrative costs.
32 U tom pogledu kao prvo treba istaknuti da je pojam upravnih troškova dovoljno širok da uključi takozvane „općeˮ upravne troškove.
33 Those general administrative costs must, however, relate only to the four activities expressly referred to in Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 and recalled in paragraph 29 of the present judgment.
33 Međutim ti se opći upravni troškovi smiju odnositi samo na četiri aktivnosti izričito navedene u članku 11. stavku 1. Direktive 97/13 i ponovljene u točki 29. ove presude.
34 According to the information submitted to the Court, the calculation of the fee at issue in the main proceedings includes expenditure relating to other tasks such as the regulatory authority's general supervisory activities and, in particular, monitoring possible abuses of a dominant position.
34 U skladu s informacijama dostavljenima Sudu, izračun naknade o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku uključuje troškove koji se odnose na druge zadaće kao što su opće aktivnosti nadzora regulatornog tijela, a posebno na nadzor mogućih zloupotreba dominantnog položaja.
35 Since this form of monitoring goes beyond the work strictly generated by the implementation of individual licences, it follows that taking into account expenditure linked to this monitoring is contrary to Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13.
35 S obzirom na to da takav oblik nadzora izlazi izvan okvira rada na izradi pojedinačnih dozvola, proizlazi da je uzimanje u obzir troškova povezanih s tim nadzorom u suprotnosti s člankom 11. stavkom 1. Direktive 97/13.
36 Secondly, it is necessary to check whether the general administrative costs relating to the four activities referred to in Article 11(1) can be estimated over a period of 30 years and included in the calculation of the fee.
36 Važno je, kao drugo, provjeriti mogu li se opći upravni troškovi koji se odnose na četiri aktivnosti iz članka 11. stavka 1. procijeniti za 30-godišnje razdoblje i uključiti u izračun naknade.
37 It is clear from the observations submitted to the Court by i-21, Arcor and the Commission that an estimation covering such a long period raises problems of reliability, having regard to the particularities of the telecommunications sector.
37 Iz očitovanja koja su Sudu dostavili i-21 i Arcor te Komisija proizlazi da procjena koja obuhvaća tako dugo razdoblje otvara problem pouzdanosti, uzimajući u obzir posebnosti telekomunikacijskog sektora.
Given that this sector is expanding and developing constantly, it would indeed appear difficult to predict the market situation and the number of telecommunications undertakings in several years' time, all the more so over a period of 30 years.
S obzirom na to da se taj sektor neprestano širi i razvija, teško je predvidjeti tržišnu situaciju i broj društava za telekomunikacije u sljedećih nekoliko godina, a pogotovo za razdoblje od 30 godina.
Thus, the number of individual licences to be managed in the future and, therefore, the level of general costs arising from such management are unclear.
Stoga su broj pojedinačnih dozvola kojima je potrebno upravljati u budućnosti i razina troškova koji proizlaze iz takvog upravljanja neizvjesni.
Furthermore, the applicable legislation has been subject to significant changes, as shown by the new directives adopted in 2002, including Directive 2002/21 which repeals Directive 97/13.
Osim toga zakonodavstvo koje se primjenjuje predmet je značajnih izmjena, što pokazuju nove direktive donesene 2002. uključujući Direktivu 2002/21 kojom se stavlja izvan snage Direktiva 97/13.
Those legislative amendments are also likely to affect the scope of the administrative costs generated by the individual licensing regimes.
Te zakonodavne izmjene će također vjerojatno utjecati na opseg upravnih troškova koji nastaju unutar režima pojedinačnih dozvola.
38 The lack of reliability of the estimation and its effects on the fee calculation affect the latter's compatibility with the requirements of proportionality, transparency and non-discrimination.
38 Nepouzdanost procjene i posljedice te nepouzdanosti na izračun naknade utječu na spojivost naknade sa zahtjevima proporcionalnosti, transparentnosti i nediskriminacije.
39 First, the calculation of the general costs over a period of 30 years entails an extrapolation of the expenditure that may be incurred in the future which, by definition, does not represent the expenditure actually incurred.
39 Kao prvo, izračun općih troškova za 30-godišnje razdoblje znači ekstrapolaciju izdataka koji bi mogli nastati u budućnosti, što po definiciji ne znači stvarno nastale troškove.
In the absence of a mechanism to revise the amount of fee claimed, that amount cannot be strictly proportionate to the work involved, as Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 expressly requires.
Budući da nema mehanizma ponovne provjere iznosa zahtijevane naknade, taj iznos ne može biti strogo proporcionalan opsegu posla, kako to izričito zahtijeva članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 97/13.
40 Next, since it is not based on expenditure actually incurred, such a system of calculation risks falling foul of the requirement to publish details of the fee as provided for in Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13, and, thereby, the objective of transparency.
40 Osim toga, s obzirom na to da se ne temelji na stvarno nastalim troškovima, takav sustav izračuna dovodi u pitanje zahtjev detaljne objave informacija u vezi s naknadom, kako predviđa članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 97/13, i slijedom toga postizanje cilja transparentnosti.
41 Finally, the obligation imposed on all telecommunications undertakings to pay a sum representing general costs over a period of 30 years fails to take account of the fact that certain undertakings might only operate on the market for a few years and may thus lead to discrimination.
41 Konačno, prilikom nametanja svim društvima za telekomunikacije obaveze plaćanja iznosa koji predstavlja opće troškove za 30-godišnje razdoblje nije uzeta u obzir činjenica da bi određeni poduzetnici mogli djelovati na tržištu samo nekoliko godina, pa stoga ta obveza može dovesti do diskriminacije.
42 It follows from the foregoing that Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 precludes the application of a fee for individual licences calculated by taking into account the regulatory body's general administrative costs linked to implementing those licences over a period of 30 years.
42 Iz navedenog proizlazi da je članku 11. stavku 1. Direktive 97/13 protivna primjena naknade za pojedinačne dozvole koja se izračunava tako da se uzimaju u obzir upravni troškovi regulatornog tijela povezani s izradom tih dozvola u razdoblju od 30 godina.
43 Arcor, i-21 and the Commission all maintain, albeit for different reasons, that the provisions of Article 10 EC, read in conjunction with those of Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13, preclude upholding an unlawful administrative act, such as the fee assessments at issue in the main proceedings, and require the Member State to repay the sums unlawfully charged.
43 Arcor, i-21 i Komisija, svi oni tvrde, iako zbog različitih razloga, da je zadržavanje nezakonitog upravnog akta, kao što su odluke o visini naknade o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku, protivno odredbama članka 10. UEZ-a u vezi s odredbama članka 11. stavka 1. Direktive 97/13, i zahtijevaju od države članice povrat nezakonito naplaćenih iznosa.
44 i-21 maintains that to uphold such an administrative act is contrary to the principle of the primacy of Community law and the need to maintain its effectiveness.
44 i-21 tvrdi da je zadržavanje takvog upravnog akta u suprotnosti s načelom nadređenosti prava Zajednice i potrebom da se održi njegov korisni učinak.
It submits that even if the Court acknowledges the importance of the principle of legal certainty, the latter does not in every case outweigh the principle of lawfulness. i-21 points out that, in the judgment in Kühne & Heitz, cited above, the Court considered that an administrative act which had acquired binding force following a judgment which could not be the subject of an appeal could be annulled, in certain circumstances, if it were contrary to Community law. i-21 takes the view that this possibility becomes even greater in the case of an administrative act which was not the subject of a judicial decision and which became final merely upon expiry of the time-limits allowed for appealing.
Ono tvrdi da čak i ako Sud uvaži važnost načela pravne sigurnosti, to načelo ne može u svakom slučaju nadvladati načelo zakonitosti. Društvo i-21 naglašava da, da je u gore navedenoj presudi Kühne & Heitz Sud ustanovio da se upravni akt, koji je postao pravomoćan na temelju presude protiv koje nema pravnog lijeka može poništiti u određenim okolnostima ako je u suprotnosti s pravom Zajednice. Društvo i-21 smatra da je ta mogućnost čak i veća u slučaju upravnog akta koji nije bio predmet sudske odluke i postao je pravomoćan samo na temelju isteka roka propisanog za žalbu.
45 Arcor considers, for its part, that the judgment in Kühne & Heitz is not relevant inasmuch as it concerns an indirect conflict between a rule of national procedure and a rule of substantive Community law, the first rule preventing application of the second.
45 Arcor smatra sa svoje strane da presuda u predmetu Kühne & Heitz nije relevantna jer se ona odnosi na posredan sukob između pravila nacionalnog postupka i pravila materijalnog prava Zajednice, pri čemu prvo pravilo sprečava uporabu drugog.
According to Arcor, the case in the main proceedings should be regarded as a direct conflict between two rules of substantive law.
Prema mišljenju Arcora, predmet u glavnom postupku treba gledati kao izravan sukob dva pravila materijalnog prava.
Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13, read in the light of Article 10 EC, requires fees levied in breach of Article 11 to be repaid, while the national legislation prohibits such reimbursement.
Članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 97/13, s obzirom na članak 10. UEZ-a, zahtijeva povrat naknada naplaćenih zbog kršenja članka 11. dok nacionalno zakonodavstvo zabranjuje takav povrat.
Arcor takes the view that Community law should, in such a case, prevail over conflicting national law.
Arcor smatra da bi pravo Zajednice u takvom slučaju moralo imati prednost u odnosu na suprotstavljeno nacionalno pravo.
46 The Commission maintains, on the other hand, that the judgment in Kühne & Heitz is a suitable starting point and points out that, in principle, an administrative act which has not been challenged within the time-limits laid down should not be withdrawn.
46 Komisija tvrdi da je gore navedena presuda Kühne & Heitz primjereno ishodište i upozorava da se u načelu upravni akt koji nije bio osporavan u propisanom roku ne smije povući.
The Commission goes on to state that, in the present case, it must be ascertained whether upholding the unlawful fee assessments should nevertheless be considered to be `downright intolerable' in the light of Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 and that that question should be examined in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
Komisija zatim navodi da je u ovom slučaju potrebno provjeriti treba li zadržavanje nezakonitih odluka o visini naknade ipak smatrati „jednostavno nedopustivimˮ s obzirom na članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 97/13 i da to pitanje treba ispitati s obzirom na načela ekvivalentnosti i djelotvornosti.
47 In relation to the principle of equivalence, the Commission submits that, according to German law, an administrative act which is manifestly unlawful under national law cannot be upheld.
47 U vezi s načelom ekvivalentnosti Komisija ističe da se u skladu s njemačkim pravom upravni akt koji je očito nezakonit ne može zadržati.
If that examination were also carried out in the light of Community law, the result would, in the Commission's view, be that the fee assessments at issue in the main proceedings and the legislation on which they are based would have to be considered to be manifestly unlawful in the light of Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13.
Da se takvo ispitivanje provede i u skladu s pravom Zajednice, po mišljenju Komisije, došlo bi se do toga da odluke o visini naknade o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku i zakonodavstvo na kojem se temelje treba smatrati očito nezakonitima s obzirom na članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 97/13.
48 The Commission arrives at the same conclusion as regards the principle of effectiveness.
48 U pogledu načela djelotvornosti Komisija dolazi do istog zaključka.
It takes the view that to uphold the fee assessments would make it practically impossible to exercise the rights derived from Article 11(1) of the directive, by allowing an overcompensation which leads to restricting competition over a period of 30 years.
Ona smatra da zadržavanje odluka o visini naknade praktično onemogućuje izvršavanje prava iz članka 11. stavka 1. Direktive jer omogućava prekomjernu naknadu koja dovodi do ograničavanja konkurencije u razdoblju od 30 godina.
49 The context in which the question referred arises should be made clear.
49 Valja objasniti okvir u kojem je postavljeno pitanje.
Contrary to Arcor's claims, the second question does not relate to a conflict between two sets of rules of substantive law on the repayment of fees levied unlawfully.
U suprotnosti s onim što tvrdi Arcor, drugo se pitanje ne odnosi na sukob između dva pravna pravila materijalnog prava o povratu nezakonito zaračunatih naknada.
Neither the provisions of Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 nor those of the TKG and the TKLGebV, as that Law and that Regulation were presented in the file submitted to the Court, deal with such reimbursement.
Takav povrat ne određuju ni odredbe članka 11. stavka 1. Direktive 97/13 ni odredbe TKG-a i TKLGebV-a, kako su taj zakon i uredba dostavljeni Sudu u spisu.
50 The question relates rather to the relationship between Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 and Paragraph 48 of the Law on Administrative Procedure, as interpreted by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht.
50 Pitanje se više odnosi na odnos članka 11. stavka 1. Direktive 97/13 i članka 48. Zakona o upravnom postupku, kako ga tumači Bundesverwaltungsgericht.
Pursuant to the latter paragraph, upon expiry of a given period, the fee assessments become final and the addressees of those assessments no longer have a legal remedy enabling them to assert a right which they derive from Article 11(1) of the directive, subject to the proviso that the competent administrative authority should withdraw an unlawful administrative act if it would be `downright intolerable' to uphold it.
U skladu s potonjim člankom, po isteku danog razdoblja, odluke o visini naknade postaju pravomoćne i njihovi adresati nemaju više na raspolaganju pravno sredstvo kojim bi mogli ostvariti pravo koje imaju na temelju članka 11. stavka 1. Direktive. Ostaje međutim obveza nadležnog upravnog tijela da poništi nezakoniti upravni akt ukoliko je njegovo zadržavanje „jednostavno nedopustivoˮ.
51 In accordance with the principle of legal certainty, Community law does not require that administrative bodies be placed under an obligation, in principle, to reopen an administrative decision which has become final upon expiry of the reasonable time-limits for legal remedies or by exhaustion of those remedies (see Kühne & Heitz, paragraph 24).
51 U skladu s načelom pravne sigurnosti, pravo Zajednice ne zahtijeva da nadležna tijela načelno imaju obvezu ponovno otvaranje postupka donošenja upravne odluke koja je postala pravomoćna po isteku razumnih rokova za podnošenje pravnih sredstava ili nakon što su pravna sredstva iscrpljena (vidjeti Kühne & Heitz, t. 24.).
Compliance with that principle prevents administrative acts which produce legal effects from being called into question indefinitely (see, by analogy, Case C-310/97 Commission v AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others [1999] ECR I-5363, paragraph 61).
Poštovanje tog načela sprečava da se upravni akti koji proizvode pravne učinke dovode u pitanje na neograničen rok (vidjeti analogijom presudu od 14. rujna 1999., Komisija/AssiDomän Kraft Products i dr., C-310/97 P, Zb., str. I-5363., t. 61.).
52 The Court has, however, acknowledged that there could be a limit to this principle in certain cases.
52 Sud je međutim priznao da to načelo može biti ograničeno u određenim slučajevima.
Thus it held in paragraph 27 of the judgment in Kühne & Heitz that the administrative body responsible for the adoption of an administrative decision is, in accordance with the principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC, under an obligation to review and possibly to reopen that decision if four conditions are fulfilled.
Stoga je u točki 28. gore navedene presude Kühne & Heitz presudio da je upravno tijelo odgovorno za donošenje upravne odluke dužno, u skladu s načelom suradnje iz članka 10. UEZ-a, preispitati tu odluku i eventualno ponovno otvoriti postupak ako su ispunjena četiri uvjeta.
First, the administrative body must, under national law, have the power to reopen that decision.
Prvo, da je upravno tijelo prema nacionalnom pravu nadležno za ponovno otvaranje postupka.
Secondly, the administrative decision in question must have become final as a result of a judgment of a national court ruling at final instance.
Drugo, da je dotična upravna odluka postala pravomoćna na temelju presude nacionalnog suda koji je odlučivao u zadnjem stupnju.
Thirdly, that judgment must, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, be based on a misinterpretation of Community law which was adopted without a question being referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling in the circumstances set out in the third paragraph of Article 234 EC.
Treće, da se ta presuda s obzirom na kasniju praksu Suda temelji na krivom tumačenju prava Zajednice koje je doneseno, a da Sudu nije bilo upućeno prethodno pitanje u skladu s odredbama članka 234.
Fourthly, the person concerned must have complained to the administrative body immediately after becoming aware of that decision of the Court.
UEZ-a. Četvrto, da se dotična osoba žalila upravnom tijelu čim je saznala za tu odluku suda.
53 The case giving rise to the judgment in Kühne & Heitz, however, was entirely different from those at issue in the main proceedings.
53 Predmet u kojem je donesena prethodno navedena presuda Kühne & Heitz potpuno je različit od onih o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku.
Whilst the undertaking Kühne & Heitz NV had exhausted all legal remedies available to it, i-21 and Arcor did not avail themselves of their right to appeal against the fee assessments issued to them.
Dok je Kühne & Heitz NV iscrpio sva pravna sredstva koja su mu bila dostupna, i-21 i Arcor nisu upotrijebili svoje pravo žalbe protiv odluka o visini naknade koje su im bile upućene.
54 Accordingly, contrary to the argument advanced by i-21, the judgment in Kühne & Heitz is not relevant for the purposes of determining whether, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an administrative body is under an obligation to review decisions which have become final.
54 Stoga, suprotno stajalištu koje iznosi i-21, presuda u predmetu Kühne & Heitz nije relevantna da se u situaciji kao što je ona u glavnom postupku može odrediti ima li upravno tijelo obvezu ponovnog preispitivanja odluka koje su postale konačne.