natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2 This reference was made in the context of a claim made on 2 July 2009 by Afton Chemical Limited (‘Afton’) for permission to make an application for judicial review of the legality of the intention and/or obligation of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to implement Directive 2009/30.
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru zahtjeva koji je 2. srpnja 2009. uputio Afton Chemical Limited (dalje u tekstu: Afton) tražeći dopuštenje za podnošenje zahtjeva za sudski nadzor zakonitosti („judicial review”) „namjere i/ili obveze” vlade Ujedinjene Kraljevine Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske da provede Direktivu 2009/30.
3 Recital 35 of the preamble to Directive 2009/30 states:
3 Uvodna izjava 35. Direktive 2009/30 glasi:
‘The use of specific metallic additives, and in particular the use of methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (“MMT”), might raise the risk of damage to human health and might cause damage to vehicle engines and emission control equipment. Many vehicle manufacturers advise against the use of fuel containing metallic additives and the use of such fuel may invalidate vehicle warranties. It is therefore appropriate to keep under constant review the effects of the use of MMT in fuel in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. Pending further review it is necessary to take steps to limit the severity of any damage that may be caused. It is therefore appropriate to set an upper limit for the use of MMT in fuel, based upon currently available scientific knowledge. This limit should be revised upwards only if the use of higher dosage rates can be demonstrated not to cause adverse effects. To avoid consumers unknowingly invalidating their vehicles’ warranties, it is also necessary to require the labelling of any fuel that contains metallic additives.’
„Uporaba posebnih aditiva sa sadržajem metala, a posebno uporaba metilciklopentadienil manganovog trikarbonila (MMT) može povećati rizik od oštećenja zdravlja ljudi i može oštetiti motore u vozilima i opremu za regulaciju emisija. Mnogi proizvođači vozila preporučuju da se ne upotrebljava gorivo koje sadrži metalne aditive, a uporaba takvoga goriva može poništiti jamstvo za vozilo. Stoga je primjereno stalno preispitivati učinke uporabe MMT-a u gorivu uz konzultacije sa svim relevantnim zainteresiranim stranama. Dok se ne provede sljedeće preispitivanje, treba poduzeti mjere za ograničavanje ozbiljnijih oštećenja do kojih može doći. Stoga je primjereno postaviti gornju granicu za uporabu MMT-a u gorivu na temelju trenutačno dostupnih znanstvenih spoznaja. Tu granicu treba revidirati prema gore samo ako se može dokazati da uporaba jače doze ne uzrokuje štetne učinke. Kako bi se izbjeglo da kupci u neznanju ponište svoja jamstva za vozila, nužno je propisati posebno označivanje goriva koje sadrži metalne aditive”.
4 Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30 inserts in Directive 98/70 an Article 8a worded as follows:
4 Člankom 1. stavkom 8. Direktive 2009/30 umeće se u Direktivu 98/70 članak 8.a koji glasi kako slijedi:
‘Metallic additives
„Aditivi sa sadržajem metala
1. The Commission shall conduct an assessment of the risks for health and the environment from the use of metallic additives in fuel and, for this purpose, develop a test methodology. It shall report its conclusions to the European Parliament and to the Council by 31 December 2012.
1. Komisija provodi procjenu rizika koju uporaba aditiva sa sadržajem metala u gorivu predstavlja za zdravlje i okoliš i u tu svrhu razvija metodologiju ispitivanja. O svojim zaključcima izvješćuje Europski parlament i Vijeće prije 31. prosinca 2012.
2. Pending the development of the test methodology referred to in paragraph 1, the presence of the metallic additive methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) in fuel shall be limited to 6 mg of manganese per litre from 1 January 2011. The limit shall be 2 mg of manganese per litre from 1 January 2014.
2. Dok ne bude razvijena metodologija ispitivanja koja se spominje u stavku 1., prisutnost metilciklopentadienil manganovog trikarbonila (MMT) kao metalnog aditiva u gorivu ograničava se od 1. siječnja 2011. na 6 mg mangana po litri. Od 1. siječnja 2014. ograničenje je 2 mg mangana po litri.
3. The limit for the MMT content of fuel specified in paragraph 2 shall be revised on the basis of the results of the assessment carried out using the test methodology referred to in paragraph 1. It may be reduced to zero where justified by the risk assessment. It cannot be increased unless justified by the risk assessment. Such a measure, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 11(4).
3. Ograničenje sadržaja MMT-a u gorivu navedeno u stavku 2. preispituje se na osnovu rezultata procjene koja se provodi primjenom metodologije ispitivanja spomenute u stavku 1. Može se smanjiti na nulu kad je to opravdano procjenom rizika. Ne može se povećati ako to nije opravdano procjenom rizika. Ta mjera, namijenjena za izmjenu elemenata ove Direktive koji nisu ključni donose se u skladu s regulatornim postupkom s kontrolom navedenim u članku 11. stavku 4.
4. Member States shall ensure that a label concerning the metallic additive content of fuel is displayed at any point where a fuel with metallic additives is made available to consumers.
4. Države članice osiguravaju da naljepnica s podacima o sadržaju aditiva u gorivu koji sadrže metal bude izložena na svim prodajnim mjestima na kojima je gorivo s metalnim aditivima dostupno potrošačima.
5. The label shall contain the following text: “Contains metallic additives”.
5. Naljepnica sadrži sljedeći tekst: ‚Sadrži metalne aditive’.
6. The label shall be attached to the place where information indicating the type of fuel is displayed, in a clearly visible position. The label shall be of a size and font that is clearly visible and easily legible.’
6. Naljepnica se pričvršćuje na mjesto na kojem se prikazuje informacija o vrsti goriva, u jasno vidljivom položaju. Naljepnica je takve dimenzije i sadrži slova takve veličine da je jasno vidljiva i lako čitljiva.”
The procedure in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Glavni postupak i prethodna pitanja
5 Afton is based in the United Kingdom and forms part of the Afton Chemical group, which manufactures and sells MMT for use worldwide.
5 Afton je osnovan u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini i dio je grupe Afton Chemical koja proizvodi i prodaje MMT koji se upotrebljava širom svijeta.
6 According to the information provided by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), MMT is a metallic fuel additive based on manganese, which is used to raise the octane level in unleaded fuel and/or to protect against valve damage in vehicles running on lead replacement petrol.
6 Prema objašnjenjima koja je dostavio High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Upravni sud), MMT je metalni aditiv za gorivo na bazi mangana koji se koristi za povećanje razine oktana u bezolovnom gorivu i/ili za zaštitu ventila protiv oštećenja u vozilima na benzinsko gorivo koje zamjenjuje olovni benzin.
7 According to Afton, the insertion by Directive 2009/30 of Article 8a(2) and Article 8a(4) to (6) in Directive 98/70 is unlawful. Prior to the adoption of Directive 2009/30, there was no limit or restriction of any kind on the use of MMT and there was no labelling requirement in respect of metallic additives and MMT in particular.
7 Prema Aftonu, umetanje članka 8.a stavka 2. i članka 8.a stavaka od 4. do 6. u Direktivu 98/70 koje je provedeno Direktivom 2009/30 je nezakonito. Prije donošenja Direktive 2009/30 nisu postojale nikakve granične vrijednosti ni ograničenja bilo kakve vrste u vezi s uporabom MMT-a i nije bilo zahtjeva za označivanje u pogledu metalnih aditiva, a posebno MMT-a.
8 Afton brought before the referring court a claim for permission to make an application for judicial review of the legality of the intention and/or obligation of the United Kingdom Government to implement Directive 2009/30.
8 Afton je od suda koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku zatražio dopuštenje za podnošenje zahtjeva za sudski nadzor („judicial review”) zakonitosti namjere i/ili obveze vlade Ujedinjene Kraljevine da prenese Direktivu 2009/30.
9 The High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) granted the permission requested and decided to stay proceedings and to refer to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
9 The High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Upravni sud) dao je traženo dopuštenje, odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘In relation to the provisions relating to metallic additives in Directive 2009/30 …:
„U vezi s odredbama koje se odnose na metalne aditive u Direktivi 2009/30 [...]:
1. With reference to that part of Article 1(8) which inserts a new Article 8a(2) into Directive 98/70 limiting the use of [MMT] in fuel to 6 mg Mn per litre from 1 January 2011 and to 2 mg from 1 January 2014, is the imposition of such limits:
1. s obzirom na onaj dio članka 1. stavka 8. kojim se u Direktivu 98/70 umeće novi članak 8.a stavak 2. koji ograničava uporabu [MMT-a] u gorivu na 6 mg Mn po litri od 1. siječnja 2011. i na 2 mg od 1. siječnja 2014., je li nametanje tih graničnih vrijednosti:
(a) Unlawful as being based on a manifest error of assessment?
(a) nezakonito budući da se zasniva na očitoj pogreški u ocjeni?
(b) Unlawful as being in violation of the requirements of the precautionary principle?
(b) nezakonito budući da povređuje zahtjeve načela opreznosti?
(c) Unlawful as lacking in proportionality?
(c) nezakonito budući da ne odgovara načelu proporcionalnosti?
(d) Unlawful as being contrary to the principle of equal treatment?
(d) nezakonito budući da je protivno načelu jednakog postupanja?
(e) Unlawful as being contrary to the principle of legal certainty?
(e) nezakonito budući da je protivno načelu pravne sigurnosti?
2. With reference to that part of Article 1(8) which inserts a new Article 8a(4), Article 8a(5) and 8a(6) into Directive 98/70 requiring the labelling of all fuels which contain metallic additives with the phrase “contains metallic additives”, is the imposition of such a labelling requirement:
2. s obzirom na onaj dio članka 1. stavka 8. kojim se u Direktivu 98/70 umeću novi članak 8.a stavci 4., 5. i 6. kojima se propisuje da se sva goriva koja sadrže metalne aditive označuju tekstom ,sadrži metalne aditiveʼ, je li nametanje takve obveze označivanja:
(b) Unlawful as lacking in proportionality?’
(b) nezakonito budući da ne odgovara načelu proporcionalnosti?”
Whether the reference for a preliminary ruling is admissible
Dopuštenost zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku
10 The Parliament and the Commission submit that the reference for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible.
10 Parlament i Komisija smatraju da je zahtjev za prethodnu odluku nedopušten.
11 According to them the reference is inadmissible because, first, there is no dispute between the parties, since the Secretary of State for Transport has declared himself neutral as to the merits of the claim, and, second, that the sole purpose of the proceedings before the referring court is to obtain the annulment of Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30.
11 Prema njima zahtjev je nedopušten jer, kao prvo, nema spora između stranaka budući da je Secretary of State for Transport izjavio da je neutralan u pogledu osnovanosti tvrdnje i, kao drugo, da je jedina svrha postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku postići poništenje članka 1. stavka 8. Direktive 2009/30.
12 The Commission contends that Afton is probably entitled to bring a direct action under Article 230 EC before the Community court.
12 Komisija ističe da Afton vjerojatno ispunjava uvjete za podnošenje izravne tužbe pred sudom Zajednice na temelju članka 230. UEZ-a.
13 First, it is to be remembered that when a question on the validity of a measure adopted by the European Union institutions is raised before a national court, it is for that court to decide whether a decision on the matter is necessary to enable it to give judgment and consequently whether it should request the Court to rule on that question. Accordingly, where the national court’s questions relate to the validity of a provision of Community law, the Court is obliged in principle to give a ruling (Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, paragraph 34, and Case C-308/06 Intertanko and Others [2008] ECR I-4057, paragraph 31).
13 Kao prvo, valja podsjetiti na to da ako je pitanje valjanosti akta koji donesu institucije Europske unije postavljeno pred nacionalnim sudom, na tom je sudu da odluči je li mu odluka o tome potrebna da bi mogao donijeti presudu i treba li slijedom toga tražiti od Suda da odluči o tom pitanju. S tim u skladu, kada se pitanja nacionalnog suda odnose na valjanost odredbe prava Zajednice, Sud je u načelu dužan donijeti odluku (presude od 10. prosinca 2002., British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, C-491/01, Zb., str. I-11453., t. 34., i od 3. lipnja 2008., Intertanko i dr., C-308/06 Zb., str. I-4057., t. 31.).
14 It is possible for the Court to refuse to give a preliminary ruling on a question submitted by a national court only where, inter alia, it is quite obvious that the ruling sought by that court on the interpretation or validity of Community law bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or where the problem is hypothetical (British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraph 35, and Intertanko and Others, paragraph 32).
14 Sud može odbiti donošenje odluke povodom prethodnog pitanja koje je uputio nacionalni sud samo kada, između ostaloga, očito proizlazi da tumačenje ili valjanost propisa Zajednice koje traži taj sud nije ni u kakvom odnosu s činjenicama ili svrhom glavnog postupka ili kada je problem hipotetske naravi (gore navedene presude British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 35., i Intertanko i dr., t. 32.).
15 In the case in the main proceedings, it is clear from the order for reference that Afton brought before the High Court an action for judicial review of the legality of the ‘intention and/or obligation’ of the United Kingdom Government to implement Directive 2009/30 even though, when that action was brought, the prescribed period for the transposition of that directive had not yet expired and no national measure transposing that directive had been adopted. Moreover, the mere fact that the Secretary of State for Transport has declared his intention to implement Directive 2009/30 justifies the view being taken that there is some disagreement between Afton and the Secretary of State (see, to that effect, British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraph 36).
15 U glavnom postupku, iz odluke kojom se upućuje zahtjev za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da je Afton podnio High Courtu zahtjev za sudski nadzor zakonitosti „namjere i/ili obveze” vlade Ujedinjene Kraljevine da prenese Direktivu 2009/30 iako, kada je taj zahtjev upućen, rok propisan za prenošenje te direktive još nije istekao i nije donesena nijedna nacionalna mjera kojom se ta direktiva prenosi. Osim toga, sama činjenica da je Secretary of State for Transport izjavio da ima namjeru provesti Direktivu 2009/30 dovoljna je da se može smatrati da između Aftona i spomenutog Secretary of State postoji određeno neslaganje (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 36.).
16 Nor is it disputed before the Court of Justice that the questions submitted are relevant to the outcome of the main proceedings, as the adoption of national measures designed to transpose a directive into domestic law in the United Kingdom may be subject to the condition that the directive be valid (Intertanko and Others, paragraph 34).
16 Na Sudu se ne osporava ni to da su upućena pitanja relevantna za ishod glavnog postupka budući da donošenje nacionalnih mjera s namjerom prenošenja direktive u pravni poredak Ujedinjene Kraljevine može biti podložno uvjetu da ta direktiva treba biti valjana (Intertanko i dr., t. 34.).
17 Accordingly, it is not obvious that the ruling sought by the referring court on the validity of Directive 2009/30 bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or is concerned with a hypothetical problem.
17 U skladu s tim, nije očito da prethodna odluka koju sud koji je uputio zahtjev traži o valjanosti Direktive 2009/30 nije povezana s činjeničnim stanjem glavnog postupka ili s njegovim predmetom ili da se odnosi na problem hipotetske naravi.
18 As regards, secondly, the question of whether accepting the admissibility of an order for reference seeking a decision on validity in a situation such as that in the main proceedings could be tantamount to circumventing the requirements of Article 230 EC, it must be stated that, in the complete system of legal remedies and procedures established by the EC Treaty with a view to ensuring judicial review of the legality of acts of the institutions, where natural or legal persons cannot, by reason of the conditions for admissibility laid down in the fourth paragraph of that article, directly challenge Community measures of general application, they are able, depending on the case, either indirectly to plead the invalidity of such acts before the Community judicature under Article 241 EC or to do so before the national courts and ask them, since they have no jurisdiction themselves to declare those measures invalid, to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on validity (see British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraph 39).
18 Što se tiče, kao drugo, pitanja o tome bi li prihvaćanje dopuštenosti zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku o valjanosti, u situaciji kao što je ova u glavnom postupku moglo biti ravno zaobilaženju odredaba iz članka 230. UEZ-a, valja istaknuti da u cijelom sustavu pravnih sredstava i postupaka koji su Ugovorom o EZ-u uspostavljeni s ciljem osiguravanja sudskog nadzora zakonitosti akata institucija, u kojem fizičke ili pravne osobe ne mogu, zbog uvjeta dopuštenosti utvrđenih u četvrtom stavku tog članka, izravno pobijati akte Zajednice opće primjene, te osobe mogu se, ovisno o slučaju, na temelju članka 241. UEZ-a, na nevaljanost tih akata neizravno pozivati pred sudom Zajednice ili pred nacionalnim sudovima i od njih tražiti da, budući da oni sami nemaju nadležnost proglasiti te akte nevaljanim, zahtjev za prethodnu odluku o valjanosti upute Sudu (vidjeti British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 39.).
19 The question therefore arises whether an action for annulment by Afton, under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, challenging the contested provisions, would undoubtedly have been admissible on the ground that those provisions were of direct and individual concern to it (see, to that effect, Case C-241/95 Accrington Beef and Others [1996] ECR I-6699, paragraph 15, and Case C-343/07 Bavaria and Bavaria Italia [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 40).
19 Stoga se postavlja pitanje bi li tužba za poništenje koju je pokrenuo Afton, na temelju četvrtog stavka članka 230. UEZ-a, u kojem se osporavaju sporne odredbe, nesumnjivo bio dopušten kada bi se te odredbe „odnosile izravno i osobno” na njega (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 12. prosinca 1996., Accrington Beef i dr., C-241/95, Zb., str. I-6699., t. 15. i od 2. srpnja 2009., Bavaria i Bavaria Italia, C-343/07, Zb., str. I-5491., t. 40.).
20 In that regard, it must be observed that Afton cannot be regarded, for the purpose of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, as undoubtedly ‘directly and individually concerned’ by the contested provisions (Bavaria and Bavaria Italia, paragraph 41).
20 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da se ne može smatrati, za potrebe četvrtog stavka članka 230. UEZ-a, da se sporne odredbe „odnose izravno i osobno” na Afton (gore navedena presuda Bavaria i Bavaria Italia, t. 40.).
21 According to settled case-law, in order for traders to be regarded as being individually concerned by the measure they seek to have annulled, their legal position must be affected by reason of circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and distinguish them individually just as in the case of the person addressed (see Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, 107, and Case C-309/89 Codorniu v Council [1994] ECR I-1853, paragraph 20).
21 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, za akt čije poništenje gospodarski subjekti traže smatra se da se odnosi na njih osobno samo ako akt utječe na njihov pravni položaj zbog neke činjenične situacije koja ih razlikuje od bilo koje druge osobe, izdvajajući ih uslijed toga pojedinačno, poput osoba kojima je akt upućen (vidjeti presude od 15. srpnja 1963., Plaumann/Komisija, 25/62, Zb., str. 197., 223., i od 18. svibnja 1994. Codorniu/Vijeće, C-309/89, Zb., str. I-1853., t. 20.).
22 In the case in the main proceedings, it is clear that the provisions of Directive 2009/30 which the applicant seeks to annul concern all producers of MMT.
22 U glavnom postupku jasno je da se odredbe Direktive 2009/30, čije se poništenje traži, odnose na sve proizvođače MMT-a.
23 Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30 does not specifically refer to Afton and is of concern to it only in its objective capacity as a producer of MMT in the same way as any other trader which is currently or potentially in the same situation.
23 Članak 1. stavak 8. Direktive 2009/30 ne odnosi se izričito na Afton i tiče ga se samo u njegovom objektivnom svojstvu proizvođača MMT-a jednako kao što se tiče bilo kojeg drugog gospodarskog subjekta koji je trenutačno ili potencijalno u istoj situaciji.
24 Moreover, it must also be borne in mind that the possibility of determining more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, as long as it is established that, as in the present case, that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question (see, inter alia, Case C-451/98 Antillean Rice Mills v Council [2001] ECR I-8949, paragraph 52, and order of 8 April 2008 in Case C-503/07 P Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission [2008] ECR I-2217, paragraph 70).
24 Valja također podsjetiti da mogućnost da se s više ili manje točnosti odredi broj ili čak identitet pravnih subjekata na koje se primjenjuje neka mjera ni u kojem slučaju ne znači kako treba smatrati da se ta mjera osobno odnosi na te subjekte sve dok se njezina primjena ostvaruje, kao u ovom predmetu, na temelju objektivnih pravnih ili činjeničnih okolnosti određenih u predmetnom aktu (vidjeti osobito presudu od 22. studenoga 2001., Antillean Rice Mills/Vijeće, C-451/98, Zb., str. I-8949., t. 52., i rješenje od 8. travnja 2008., Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland/Komisija, C-503/07 P, Zb., str. I-2217., t. 70.).
25 The court must therefore find that Afton did not undoubtedly have standing to bring an action for annulment against the contested provisions on the basis of Article 230 EC. Consequently, Afton is entitled, in an action brought in accordance with national law, to plead the invalidity of those provisions even though it did not bring an action for their annulment before the Community judicature within the period laid down in Article 230 EC (see, to that effect, Bavaria and Bavaria Italia, paragraph 46).
25 Valja dakle utvrditi da nije bilo nedvojbeno da Afton ima postupovnu legitimaciju za pokretanje postupka za poništenje spornih odredaba na temelju članka 230. UEZ-a. Slijedom navedenog, u postupku pokrenutom u skladu s nacionalnim pravom Afton ima pravo pozivati se na nevaljanost tih odredaba čak i ako postupak za njihovo poništenje pred sudom Zajednice nije pokrenuo u roku utvrđenom u članku 230. UEZ-a (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Bavaria i Bavaria Italia, t. 46.).