natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
4. "ship" shall mean a seagoing vessel, irrespective of its flag, of any type whatsoever operating in the marine environment and shall include hydrofoil boats, air-cushion vehicles, submersibles and floating craft.'
4. „brod" znači morsko plovilo bilo koje vrste, neovisno o zastavi, koje je ovisno o svom djelovanju vezano za morski okoliš, te obuhvaća hidrokrilne brodove, plovila na zračnom jastuku, ronilice i plutajuće objekte."
21 According to Article 3 of that directive:
21 Sukladno članku 3. te direktive:
`1. This Directive shall apply, in accordance with international law, to discharges of polluting substances in:
„1. Ova Direktiva se primjenjuje, u skladu s međunarodnim pravom, na ispuštanja onečišćujućih tvari u:
(a) the internal waters, including ports, of a Member State, in so far as the Marpol regime is applicable;
(a) unutarnjim morskim vodama države članice uključujući luke, ako se primjenjuje režim Konvencije Marpol;
(b) the territorial sea of a Member State;
(b) teritorijalnom moru države članice;
(c) straits used for international navigation subject to the regime of transit passage, as laid down in Part III, section 2, of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to the extent that a Member State exercises jurisdiction over such straits;
(c) tjesnacima koji se koriste za međunarodnu plovidbu po režimu tranzitnog prolaza, u skladu s dijelom III. odjeljkom 2. Konvencije UN-a o pravu mora iz 1982., ako država članica provodi nadležnost nad tim prolazima;
(d) the exclusive economic zone or equivalent zone of a Member State, established in accordance with international law; and
(d) isključivom gospodarskom pojasu ili istovjetnom pojasu države članice uspostavljenom u skladu s međunarodnim pravom; i
(e) the high seas.
(e) na otvorenom moru.
2. This Directive shall apply to discharges of polluting substances from any ship, irrespective of its flag, with the exception of any warship, naval auxiliary or other ship owned or operated by a State and used, for the time being, only on government non-commercial service.'
2. Ova Direktiva se primjenjuje na ispuštanja onečišćujućih tvari s bilo kojeg broda, neovisno o zastavi, uz izuzetak bilo kojeg ratnog broda, mornaričkog pomoćnog ili drugog broda u vlasništvu ili pod upravljanjem države i koji se u određenom trenutku koristi isključivo za državnu nekomercijalnu službu."
22 Article 4 of that directive provides:
22 Članak 4. te direktive predviđa:
`Member States shall ensure that ship-source discharges of polluting substances into any of the areas referred to in Article 3(1) are regarded as infringements if committed with intent, recklessly or by serious negligence.
„Države članice osiguravaju da se ispuštanja onečišćujućih tvari s brodova u bilo koja od područja navedenih u članku 3. stavku 1. smatraju kršenjima ako su počinjena namjerno, nepažnjom ili teškim nemarom.
These infringements are regarded as criminal offences by, and in the circumstances provided for in, Framework Decision 2005/667 ... supplementing this Directive.'
Ta se kršenja smatraju kaznenim djelima prema Okvirnoj odluci 2005/667/PUP koja dopunjuje ovu Direktivu i to u okolnostima navedenima u toj Okvirnoj odluci."
23 According to Article 8 of Directive 2005/35:
23 Sukladno članku 8. Direktive 2005/35:
`1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that infringements within the meaning of Article 4 are subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, which may include criminal or administrative penalties.
„1. Države članice poduzimaju potrebne mjere kako bi osigurale da kršenja u smislu članka 4. podliježu učinkovitim, proporcionalnim i odvraćajućim sankcijama, a koje mogu obuhvaćati kaznene i administrativne sankcije.
2. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the penalties referred to in paragraph 1 apply to any person who is found responsible for an infringement within the meaning of Article 4.'
2. Svaka država članica poduzima mjere potrebne kako bi se osiguralo da sankcije navedene u stavku 1. vrijede za svaku osobu za koju se utvrdi odgovornost za kršenje u smislu članka 4."
24 At the time of adoption both of Directive 2005/35 and the Framework Decision, the Commission made statements in order to dissociate itself from the `double-text' approach taken by the Council.
24 U trenutku donošenja kako Direktive 2005/35 tako i Okvirne odluke, Komisija je davala izjave kojima se suzdržala od pristupa „dvostrukog teksta" koji je zauzelo Vijeće.
The statement relating to the Framework Decision reads as follows:
Izjava vezana uz Okvirnu odluku 2005/667 glasi:
`Given the importance of combating ship-source pollution, the Commission is in favour of the discharge of polluting substances by ships being made a criminal offence and of penalties being adopted at national level in the event of the infringement of Community regulations concerning ship-source pollution.
„S obzirom na važnost borbe protiv onečišćenja s brodova, Komisija se zalaže za to da ispuštanje onečišćujućih tvari s brodova bude kazneno djelo, te da se na nacionalnoj razini donesu sankcije za slučaj povrede zakonodavstva Zajednice povezanog s onečišćenjem s brodova.
The Commission is, however, of the opinion that the Framework Decision is not the appropriate legal instrument with which to impose on Member States an obligation to criminalise the illicit discharge of polluting substances at sea and to establish corresponding criminal penalties at national level.
Međutim, Komisija je mišljenja da Okvirna odluka nije prikladan pravni instrument kojim bi se državama članicama nametnula obveza inkriminiranja nedozvoljenog ispuštanja onečišćujućih tvari na moru i određivanja odgovarajućih kaznenih sankcija na nacionalnoj razini.
The Commission - as it is arguing in the Court of Justice in its appeal C-176/03 [Case C-176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I-7879] against the Framework Decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law - considers that, within the competences which it possesses for the purpose of achieving the objectives set out in Article 2 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Community is empowered to require Member States to provide for penalties - including, if appropriate, criminal penalties - at national level, where this proves necessary in order to achieve a Community objective.
Kako je i argumentirala pred Sudom u svojoj tužbi C-176/03 [presuda od 13. rujna 2005., Komisija/Vijeće, C-176/03, Zb., str. I-7879.] protiv Okvirne odluke ,o zaštiti okoliša kroz kazneno pravoʼ, Komisija u stvari smatra da je Zajednica, u okviru nadležnosti koje posjeduje u svrhu postizanja ciljeva navedenih u članku 2. Ugovora o osnivanju Europske zajednice, ovlaštena zahtijevati od država članica da na nacionalnoj razini predvide sankcije, uključujući i kaznene sankcije ako je to primjereno, ukoliko se to pokaže nužnim za postizanje cilja Zajednice.
This is the case with regard to questions of ship-source pollution, for which Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community constitutes the legal basis.
To je slučaj kod pitanja onečišćenja s brodova, za koje članak 80. stavak 2. Ugovora o osnivanju Europske zajednice predstavlja pravnu osnovu.
Pending the ruling on C-176/03, if the Council adopts the Framework Decision in spite of this Community competence, the Commission reserves all the rights conferred upon it by the Treaty.'
Do donošenja presude u predmetu C-176/03, ako Vijeće donese okvirnu odluku unatoč ovoj nadležnosti Zajednice, Komisija pridržava sva prava koja su joj dana Ugovorom."
25 Considering that the Framework Decision had not been adopted on the correct legal basis and that Article 47 EU had thereby been infringed, the Commission brought the present action.
25 S obzirom na to da Okvirna odluka nije bila donesena na ispravnoj pravnoj osnovi te da je time došlo do povrede članka 47. UEU-a, Komisija je podnijela ovu tužbu.
26 By order of the President of the Court of 25 April 2006, leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission and the Council respectively was granted, on the one hand, to the European Parliament and, on the other, to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, Ireland, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
26 Rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 25. travnja 2006., dopuštenje za intervenciju u prilog zahtjevima Komisije odnosno Vijeća dano je, s jedne strane Europskom parlamentu i, s druge strane, Kraljevini Belgiji, Češkoj Republici, Kraljevini Danskoj, Republici Estoniji, Helenskoj Republici, Francuskoj Republici, Irskoj, Republici Latviji, Republici Litvi, Republici Mađarskoj, Republici Malti, Kraljevini Nizozemskoj, Republici Austriji, Republici Poljskoj, Portugalskoj Republici, Slovačkoj Republici, Republici Finskoj, Kraljevini Švedskoj i Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske.
27 By order of 28 September 2006, the President of the Court granted the Republic of Slovenia leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Council.
27 Rješenjem od 28. rujna 2006. predsjednik Suda dao je Republici Sloveniji dopuštenje da intervenira u prilog zahtjevu Vijeća.
28 The Commission considers that, by virtue of the legal basis used for its adoption, the Framework Decision infringes Article 47 EU and must therefore be annulled.
28 Komisija smatra da, s obzirom na pravnu osnovu korištenu za njezino donošenje, Okvirna odluka 2005/667 krši članak 47. UEU-a te je stoga treba poništiti.
29 According to the Commission, it is clear from the judgment in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council, the implications of which extend beyond Community policy on environmental protection, that regard must be had to the aim and content of a measure in order to determine the appropriate legal basis for its adoption.
29 Prema Komisiji, iz navedene presude Komisija/Vijeće, čije implikacije premašuju politiku Zajednice u području zaštite okoliša, proizlazi da u obzir valja uzeti cilj i sadržaj akta kako bi se utvrdila prikladna pravna osnova za njezino donošenje.
Although the Court noted in that judgment that criminal law does not, as a rule, fall within the Community's sphere of competence, it recognised that the Community does have an implied competence linked to a specific legal basis and may therefore adopt appropriate criminal-law measures, provided that there is a need to combat failure to implement Community objectives and that the aim of those measures is to ensure that the Community policy in question is fully effective.
Sud je u toj presudi podsjetio da kazneno pravo u pravilu nije obuhvaćeno područjem nadležnosti Zajednice. Ipak, priznao je da Zajednica ima implicitnu nadležnost vezanu uz određenu pravnu osnovu te stoga može donositi odgovarajuće kaznenopravne mjere, uz uvjet da postoji potreba borbe protiv neprovedbe ciljeva Zajednice, te da je cilj tih mjera osiguranje pune djelotvornosti predmetne politike Zajednice.
The Court did not define the scope of the Community legislature's competence in criminal-law matters, since it did not draw any distinctions based on the nature of the criminal-law measures in question.
Sud nije definirao područje nadležnosti zakonodavca Zajednice u kaznenopravnim stvarima, budući da nije činio podjele na osnovi prirode predmetnih kaznenopravnih mjera.
30 In the present case, the preamble to the Framework Decision states that its purpose is to supplement and thereby ensure the effectiveness of the system established by Directive 2005/35, which was adopted on the basis of Article 80(2) EC.
30 U ovom predmetu, iz uvodnih izjava Okvirne odluke 2005/667 proizlazi da je njezina svrha dopuniti sustav uspostavljen Direktivom 2005/35, koja je donesena na osnovi članka 80. stavka 2. UEZ-a, i time osigurati njegovu djelotvornost.
31 As to the content of the Framework Decision, the Commission submits that the measures provided for in Articles 1 to 10 thereof all relate to criminal law and concern conduct which must be regarded as reprehensible under Community law.
31 U odnosu na sadržaj te okvirne odluke, Komisija ističe da su mjere predviđene u njezinim člancima 1. do 10. sve vezane uz kazneno pravo i tiču se postupanja koje se prema pravu Zajednice mora smatrati kažnjivim.
32 According to the Commission, the criterion requiring that there be a need, laid down by the Court in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council, is also fulfilled in the present case.
32 Kriterij s obzirom na nužnost potrebe, koji je Sud utvrdio u gore navedenoj presudi Komisija/Vijeće, također je ispunjen u ovom predmetu.
Firstly, the Council implicitly acknowledged as much in adopting the Framework Decision, since the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 29 EU provides that the Member States may approximate their legislation on criminal matters only `where necessary'.
S jedne strane, Vijeće je to implicitno priznalo donošenjem Okvirne odluke 2005/667, budući da članak 29. stavak 2. treća alineja UEU-a predviđa da države članice mogu usklađivati svoja kaznena zakonodavstva samo „u mjeri u kojoj je to potrebno".
Secondly, given the specific features of the conduct covered by Directive 2005/35, all the provisions of that framework decision are necessary in order to ensure that the system established by the directive is effective.
S druge strane, s obzirom na posebna obilježja postupanja obuhvaćenog Direktivom 2005/35, sve odredbe te okvirne odluke su nužne kako bi se osiguralo da sustav uspostavljen tom direktivom bude djelotvoran.
33 The Commission adds that, contrary to what the Council contends, the Court does not require an additional criterion, relating to the `transversal' nature of the Community policy in question, to be satisfied in order for a degree of competence in criminal-law matters to be recognised as accruing to the Community.
33 Komisija dodaje da, protivno onome što tvrdi Vijeće, Sud ne zahtijeva ispunjenje dodatnog kriterija vezanog uz „transverzalnu" prirodu predmetne politike Zajednice da bi nadležnost u kaznenopravnim stvarima bila prepoznata kao pripadajuća Zajednici.
Moreover, such a criterion would, for most areas of Community law, preclude the possibility of any form of criminal-law protection under Community law, even where there was clearly a need for criminal-law measures to be taken.
Štoviše, takav bi kriterij u većini područja prava Zajednice spriječio mogućnost kaznenopravne zaštite prema pravu Zajednice, pa i tamo gdje postoji jasna potreba za poduzimanjem mjera povezanih s kaznenim pravom.
34 As to the argument that the Council was free to act on the basis of Title VI of the EU Treaty to adopt measures relating to the criminal law of the Member States, since it had decided, as it was entitled to do under Article 80(2) EC, not to specify the penalties further in Directive 2005/35, the Commission states that Article 80(2) EC does not contain conditions for the existence of Community competence as such, but only for the exercise of that competence.
34 Kao argument da je Vijeće bilo slobodno djelovati na osnovi glave VI. Ugovora o EU-u kako bi donijelo mjere povezane s kaznenim pravom država članica, budući da je svojim ovlastima prema članku 80. stavku 2. UEZ-a bilo odlučilo ne navoditi opširnije sankcije u Direktivi 2005/35, Komisija tvrdi da ta odredba ne uvjetuje nadležnost Zajednice kao takve, nego samo njezino izvršenje.
The Council could, of course, have decided that the Member States remained competent.
Vijeće je, naravno, moglo odlučiti da države članice ostaju nadležne.
If it had, however, the Member States would have had to take action separately, since Article 47 EU precludes reliance on Title VI of the EU Treaty.
Međutim, države članice bi u takvom slučaju morale zasebno poduzeti radnje budući da članak 47. UEU-a onemogućuje pozivanje na glavu VI. Ugovora o EU-u.
35 The Commission adds that the Framework Decision does not harmonise the type and level of applicable criminal penalty, as the Member States retain a certain latitude in that regard and the national courts have discretion to adjust the penalties to suit the individual case.
35 Komisija nadalje tvrdi da se Okvirnom odlukom 2005/667 ne usklađuju razina i vrsta primjenjivih kaznenih sankcija, jer u tom području države članice zadržavaju određenu slobodu, a nacionalni sudovi imaju mogućnost individualizacije kazni.
Thus, the provisions of Framework Decision 2005/667 do not differ fundamentally from those of Article 5(1) of Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law (OJ 2003 L 29, p. 55), which was annulled by the Court in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council.
Dakle, odredbe te okvirne odluke u osnovi se ne razlikuju od onih iz članka 5. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke Vijeća 2003/80/PUP od 27. siječnja 2003. o zaštiti okoliša kroz kazneno pravo (SL L 29, str. 55.), koju je Sud poništio u navedenoj presudi Komisija/Vijeće.
36 Criminal law does not, of course, constitute an independent Community policy area.
36 Kazneno pravo svakako ne predstavlja neovisnu politiku Zajednice.
The fact remains, however, that the Community has an ancillary criminal-law competence, which it may exercise if necessary.
Ipak, činjenica je da Zajednica ima dodatnu kaznenopravnu nadležnost koju može izvršavati ako je to nužno.
The criterion of need, applied by the Court in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council, applies only in relation to the exercise of that competence, not to the question whether such a competence exists.
Kriterij postojanja potrebe, koji je Sud koristio u navedenoj presudi Komisija/Vijeće, primjenjuje se samo u odnosu na izvršenje te nadležnosti, a ne na pitanje postoji li ta nadležnost.
37 In the light of the functional approach taken by the Court in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council, and the fact that the measures provided for in Articles 1 to 10 of the Framework Decision are criminal-law rules which are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the common transport policy, as elaborated upon in Directive 2005/35, the Commission considers that the Framework Decision as a whole infringes Article 47 EU and must accordingly be annulled.
37 U svjetlu funkcionalnog pristupa koji je Sud zauzeo u presudi Komisija/Vijeće, i činjenice da su mjere predviđene u člancima 1. do 10. Okvirne odluke 2005/667 kaznena pravila koja su nužna za osiguranje djelotvornosti zajedničke prometne politike, kako je razloženo u Direktivi 2005/35, Komisija smatra da okvirna odluka u cijelosti krši članak 47. UEU-a, te je stoga treba poništiti.
38 The Commission also observes that the terms `essential' and `needed', on the one hand, and the notion of `necessary' within the meaning of Article 29 EU, on the other, in fact reflect the same concept and that, at that level, there is no difference between the EC Treaty and the EU Treaty.
38 Komisija također primjećuje da, s jedne strane, izrazi „ključno" i „potrebno" i, s druge strane, pojam „nužno" u smislu članka 29. UEU-a, zapravo odražavaju isti koncept te da na toj razini nema razlike između Ugovora o EZ-u i Ugovora o EU-u.
39 Lastly, the Commission submits that its interpretation of the judgment in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council does not deprive Title VI of the EU Treaty of any useful purpose, since a great many areas coming within the scope of that title are not affected by that interpretation.
39 Naposljetku, Komisija tvrdi da njezino tumačenje navedene presude u predmetu Komisija/Vijeće ne oduzima glavi VI. Ugovora o EU-u njezin korisni učinak, jer mnoga područja obuhvaćena tom glavom ostaju netaknuta tim tumačenjem.
40 The European Parliament observes that the Framework Decision is a perfect match of the framework decision which was the subject-matter of the judgment in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council.
40 Europski parlament primjećuje da Okvirna odluka 2005/667 u potpunosti odgovara okvirnoj odluci koja je bila predmet presude u predmetu Komisija/Vijeće.
Firstly, its aim and content are wholly analogous to that of Framework Decision 2003/80, which was annulled by the Court in that judgment.
Prvo, njezin cilj i sadržaj u cijelosti se poklapaju s onima Okvirne odluke 2003/80 koju je Sud poništio u toj presudi.
As is clear from the preamble thereto, the fight against pollution and protection of the environment are not ancillary or secondary objectives of Framework Decision 2005/667.
Kao što proizlazi iz uvodne izjave Okvirne odluke 2005/667, borba protiv onečišćenja i zaštita okoliša nisu popratni ili sporedni ciljevi te okvirne odluke.
Likewise, its content is similar to that of Framework Decision 2003/80, since in both cases the criminal offences envisaged relate to the discharge of polluting substances.
Jednako tako, njezin je sadržaj sličan onomu Okvirne odluke 2003/80, budući da se u oba slučaja kaznena djela odnose na ispuštanje onečišćujućih tvari.
Although the two framework decisions diverge as regards the specific definition of the type and level of criminal penalty to be applied, that divergence is not such as to justify, in the present case, an outcome which is any different from that in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council.
Iako se dvije okvirne odluke razlikuju u pogledu preciznih definicija razine i vrsta kaznenih sankcija koje treba primjenjivati, ta razlika nije takva da bi u ovom predmetu opravdala ishod koji isključuje onaj iz presude Komisija/Vijeće.
In fact, in that judgment the Court has already held that the Community legislature's competence in criminal-law matters extends to provisions such as Article 5(1) of Framework Decision 2003/80 concerning the type and level of criminal penalties.
Zapravo, u toj je presudi Sud već utvrdio da se nadležnost zakonodavca Zajednice u kaznenopravnim stvarima širi na odredbe kao što su one iz članka 5. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke 2003/80 u pogledu vrste i razine kaznenih sankcija.
41 Next, the criterion requiring that there be a need is also fulfilled in the present case.
41 Nadalje, kriterij povezan s postojanjem potrebe također je ispunjen u ovom predmetu.
Lastly, since Articles 1 to 6 of the Framework Decision come within Community competence, that decision, being indivisible, should be regarded in its entirety as infringing Article 47 EU.
Naposljetku, kako su članci 1. do 6. Okvirne odluke 2005/667 u nadležnosti Zajednice, za tu odluku, s obzirom na nedjeljivost njezinih odredaba, treba smatrati da u cijelosti krši članak 47. UEU-a.
42 The Council, by contrast, puts forward as its principal argument that, in adopting Directive 2005/35 together with the European Parliament under the co-decision procedure, it decided - in accordance with Article 80(2) EC - the question `whether' and, if so, `to what extent' the Community legislature must exercise its competence to adopt provisions on ship-source pollution, in particular provisions introducing penalties for infringement of the relevant rules.
42 Za razliku od toga, Vijeće kao svoj glavni argument ističe da je donošenjem Direktive 2005/35 u postupku suodlučivanja zajedno s Europskim parlamentom, u skladu s člankom 80. stavkom 2. UEZ-a razriješilo pitanje „mora li" i, ako da, „u kojoj mjeri" zakonodavac Zajednice izvršavati svoju nadležnost za donošenje mjera vezanih uz onečišćenje s brodova, a posebno odredaba kojima se uvode sankcije za povredu normi kojima se uređuje to područje.
Through the adoption of that directive, the Community legislature wished to demarcate the limits of its own power to take action in matters involving maritime transport policy.
Donošenjem te direktive zakonodavac Zajednice je htio utvrditi granice svojih vlastitih ovlasti za djelovanje u području politike pomorskog prometa.
This approach is entirely in keeping with Article 80(2) EC and the case-law of the Court.
Ovaj se pristup u potpunosti pridržava članka 80. stavka 2. UEZ-a i prakse Suda.
43 The Community legislature could have decided to go further on the basis of Article 80(2) EC.
43 Zakonodavac Zajednice je mogao odlučiti ići dalje na temelju članka 80. stavka 2. UEZ-a.