natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
14 Although Article 228 EC does not specify the period within which a judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be complied with, it follows from settled case-law that the importance of immediate and uniform application of Community law means that the process of compliance must be initiated at once and completed as soon as possible (see, inter alia, Case C-121/07 Commission v France [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).
14 Iako članak 228. UEZ-a ne utvrđuje rok u kojem treba izvršiti presudu Suda o postojanju povrede obveze, iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da interes koji se vezuje uz hitnu i ujednačenu primjenu prava Zajednice zahtijeva da to izvršenje treba odmah započeti i dovršiti u najkraćim mogućim rokovima (vidjeti osobito presudu od 9. prosinca 2008., Komisija/Francuska, C-121/07, još neobjavljenu u Zborniku, t. 21., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
15 In addition, the reference date for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 228 EC is the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion issued under that provision (see, inter alia, Case C-503/04 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-6153, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
15 Osim toga, datum prema kojem se određuje postojanje povrede obveze na temelju članka 228. UEZ-a jest datum isteka roka određenog u obrazloženom mišljenju izdanom na temelju te odredbe (vidjeti osobito presudu od 18. srpnja 2007., Komisija/Njemačka, C-503/04, Zb., str. I-6153., t. 19., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
16 In the present case, it is quite clear that, by the date on which the two-month period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 29 June 2007 expired, the Hellenic Republic had not taken any of the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, since the draft of a first measure designed to comply with that judgment was not notified to the Commission until 7 May 2008.
16 U ovom slučaju je očito da do datuma isteka dvomjesečnog roka utvrđenog u obrazloženom mišljenju od 29. lipnja 2007. Helenska Republika nije poduzela nijednu mjeru potrebnu za izvršenje presude Komisija/Grčka, s obzirom da je Komisija obaviještena o nacrtu prve mjere za izvršenje tek 7. svibnja 2008.
17 In those circumstances, it must be held that, as it itself acknowledges, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC.
17 Pod tim uvjetima valja utvrditi da Helenska Republika, kako i sama priznaje, nije ispunila obveze koje ima na temelju članka 228. stavka 1. UEZ-a.
Financial penalties
Novčane kazne
The periodic penalty payment
Novčana kazna
18 On the basis of the method of calculation set out in its communication of 13 December 2005 on the application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty (SEC(2005) 1658), the Commission proposes that the Court impose on the Hellenic Republic a penalty payment of EUR 31 798.80 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, in order to punish such non-compliance, from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until such time as the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece has been complied with.
18 Na temelju načina izračuna utvrđenog u njezinoj obavijesti o provedbi članka 228. Ugovora o EZ-u [SEC(2005) 1658] od 13. prosinca 2005., Komisija predlaže Sudu da Helenskoj Republici naloži plaćanje novčane kazne u iznosu od 31 798,80 eura za svaki dan kašnjenja u izvršenju gore navedene presude Komisija/Grčka, računajući od dana objave presude u tom predmetu do dana izvršenja navedene presude Komisija/Grčka.
19 The Commission submits that an order imposing a periodic penalty payment is the most appropriate instrument for bringing as soon as possible to an end the infringement established and that, in the present case, a penalty payment of EUR 31 798.80 for each day of delay properly reflects the seriousness and duration of the infringement, while at the same time having regard to the need to make the penalty effective. That sum is calculated by multiplying a uniform basic amount of EUR 600 by a coefficient of 11 (on a scale of 1 to 20) to take account of the seriousness of the infringement, by a coefficient of 1.1 (on a scale of 1 to 3) to take account of the duration of the infringement, and by a coefficient of 4.38 (based on the gross domestic product of the Member State in question and the weighting of votes within the Council of the European Union), which is deemed to reflect the capacity of the Member State concerned to pay.
19 Komisija tvrdi da je nalaganje plaćanja novčane kazne najprimjereniji instrument za najbrže okončanje utvrđene povrede i da je, u ovom slučaju, novčana kazna u iznosu od 31 798,80 eura za svaki dan kašnjenja prilagođena težini i trajanju povrede, vodeći pri tom računa o potrebi učinkovitosti kazne. Taj se iznos izračunava množenjem jedinstvene osnovice od 600 eura s koeficijentom 11 (na ljestvici od 1 do 20) za težinu povrede, s koeficijentom 1,1 (na ljestvici od 1 do 3) za trajanje povrede i s koeficijentom 4,38 (na osnovi bruto domaćeg proizvoda dotične države članice i ponderiranja glasova u Vijeću Europske unije), što se smatra da odražava sposobnost plaćanja dotične države članice.
20 As regards the seriousness of the infringement, the Commission observes that the national rules at issue infringe three of the four fundamental freedoms provided for by the Treaty. It also submits that the Greek authorities have not fulfilled their obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34 and that, furthermore, they did not cooperate fully with the Commission in the pre-litigation phase of the procedure initiated under Article 228 EC.
20 Što se tiče težine povrede, Komisija ističe da predmetni nacionalni propisi krše tri od četiri temeljne slobode predviđene Ugovorom. Osim toga, tvrdi da grčka tijela nisu ispunila svoje obveze koje imaju na temelju članka 8. stavka 1. podstavka 1. Direktive 98/34 i da osim toga nisu surađivala u potpunosti s Komisijom u predsudskoj fazi postupka pokrenutog na temelju članka 228. UEZ-a.
21 The Hellenic Republic contends that the coefficient deemed to take account of the seriousness of the infringement established has been set at an extremely high level by the Commission and that it should not exceed 4. In that regard, it maintains that the infringement affected only a small sector of activity, that the national rules at issue are applied without discrimination and that, moreover, they represent the most appropriate solution to the economic and social problems caused by the unhealthy and uncontrolled way in which games are being exploited, with the result that the rules are justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. In addition, referring to the case-law of the Court, the Hellenic Republic contends that the coefficient in question infringes the principle of proportionality.
21 Helenska Republika tvrdi da je Komisija izrazito visoko procijenila koeficijent kojim se uzima u obzir težina utvrđene povrede i da on ne bi smio biti viši od 4. S tim u vezi ističe da je povreda utjecala tek na malo područje djelatnosti, da se predmetni nacionalni propisi primjenjuju bez diskriminacije i da je, osim toga, najprimjerenije rješenje za gospodarske i socijalne probleme uzrokovane nezdravom i nekontroliranom upotrebom igara, na način da je opravdana važnim razlozima u općem interesu. Osim toga, pozivajući se na sudsku praksu Suda, tvrdi da navedeni koeficijent krši načelo proporcionalnosti.
22 As regards the duration of the infringement, the Commission takes into account the period of 11 complete months from delivery of the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece until 17 October 2007, the date on which it decided to bring the present action.
22 Što se tiče trajanja povrede, Komisija uzima u obzir razdoblje od punih 11 mjeseci koje je proteklo od objave presude Komisija/Grčka do 17. listopada 2007., datuma njezine odluke o podnošenju ove tužbe.
23 The Hellenic Republic claims that that coefficient should be reduced to a basic rate. It maintains that the infringement in fact started on expiry of the three-month period set in the letter of 11 December 2006, in which the Commission asked for information on the situation concerning compliance with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece.
23 Helenska Republika traži da se taj koeficijent smanji na najnižu stopu. Tvrdi da povreda obveza u stvari započinje po isteku tromjesečnog roka utvrđenog u dopisu od 11. prosinca 2006. kojim je Komisija zatražila podatke o stanju izvršenja presude Komisija/Grčka.
24 Since it has been established that the Hellenic Republic has failed to comply with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, the Court may, under the third subparagraph of Article 228(2) EC, impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it.
24 Utvrdivši da Helenska Republika nije postupila u skladu s presudom Komisija/Grčka, Sud može, na temelju članka 228. stavka 2. podstavka 3. UEZ-a, naložiti toj državi članici plaćanje paušalnog iznosa ili novčane kazne.
25 In that connection, it should be pointed out that it is for the Court to assess in each case, in the light of the circumstances of the case, the financial penalties to be imposed (Case C-70/06 Commission v Portugal [2008] ECR I-1, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
25 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da Sud treba ocijeniti u svakom slučaju, s obzirom na okolnosti pojedinog slučaja, visinu novčanih kazni (presuda od 10. siječnja 2008., Komisija/Portugal, C-70/06, Zb. str. I-1., t. 31., i navedena sudska praksa).
26 In the present case, as stated in paragraph 18 above, the Commission asks the Court to impose on the Hellenic Republic, inter alia, a periodic penalty payment of EUR 31 798.80.
26 U ovom slučaju, kako je navedeno u točki 18. ove presude, Komisija predlaže Sudu da osobito naloži Helenskoj Republici novčanu kaznu u iznosu od 31 798,80 eura.
27 In that connection, it must first of all be pointed out that the Commission’s suggestions cannot bind the Court and merely constitute a useful point of reference (see Case C-278/01 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-14141, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). Similarly, while guidelines such as those in the notices of the Commission do not bind the Court, they do help to ensure that the Commission acts in a manner which is transparent, foreseeable and consistent with legal certainty (see, to that effect, Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263, paragraph 85, and Case C-177/04 Commission v France [2006] ECR I-2461, paragraph 70).
27 S tim u vezi najprije valja istaknuti da prijedlozi Komisije ne obvezuju Sud i predstavljaju tek korisnu referentnu točku (vidjeti presudu od 25. studenoga 2003., Komisija/Španjolska, C-278/01, Zb. str. I-14141., t. 41., i navedenu sudsku praksu). Isto tako, smjernice poput onih sadržanih u obavijestima Komisije ne obvezuju Sud, nego doprinose osiguranju transparentnosti, predvidljivosti i pravnoj sigurnosti u vezi s postupanjem Komisije (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 12. srpnja 2005., Komisija/Francuska, C-304/02, Zb., str. I-6263., t. 85. i od 14. ožujka 2006., Komisija/Francuska, C-177/04, Zb., str. I-2461., t. 70.).
28 The Court has also made clear that an order imposing a periodic penalty payment and/or a lump sum is intended to place a defaulting Member State under economic pressure which induces it to put an end to the infringement established. The financial penalties imposed must therefore be decided on according to the degree of persuasion needed for the Member State in question to alter its conduct (see, to that effect, Case C-304/02 Commission v France, paragraph 91, and Case C-177/04 Commission v France, paragraphs 59 and 60).
28 Sud je isto tako pojasnio da je namjena nalaganja plaćanja novčane kazne i/ili paušalnog iznosa staviti državu članicu koja ne ispunjava svoje obveze pod ekonomski pritisak koji je potiče na okončanje utvrđene povrede. Nametnute novčane kazne moraju stoga biti određene u skladu sa stupnjem potrebnog uvjeravanja da dotična država članica izmijeni svoje ponašanje (vidjeti u tom smislu ranije navedene presude od 12. srpnja 2005., Komisija/Francuska, t. 91., kao i od 14. ožujka 2006., Komisija/Francuska, t. 59. i 60.).
29 In the present case, it must be stated that, during the hearing at the Court on 29 January 2009, the Hellenic Republic’s agent confirmed that no legislative provision putting an end to the infringement established by the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece had yet been voted on, let alone come into force.
29 U predmetnom slučaju valja utvrditi da je tijekom rasprave na Sudu 29. siječnja 2009. agent Helenske Republike potvrdio da do toga dana nije bilo glasovanja o zakonodavnoj odredbi kojom bi se okončala povreda utvrđena presudom Komisija/Grčka i da, a fortiori, takva odredba nije stupila na snagu.
30 Given that the failure in question to fulfil obligations was still continuing on the date on which the Court examined the facts, an order imposing a periodic penalty payment on the Hellenic Republic, suggested by the Commission, constitutes an appropriate means by which to induce that Member State to take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece (see Commission v Portugal, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
30 S obzirom da je dotična povreda obveze još uvijek trajala na dan kada je Sud ispitivao činjenice, nalaganje plaćanja novčane kazne Helenskoj Republici, koju je predložila Komisija, predstavlja primjeren način da se ta država članica potakne na poduzimanje mjera potrebnih za izvršenje presude Komisija/Grčka (vidjeti presudu Komisija/Portugal, t. 37., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
31 Next, as regards the method of calculation of the amount of such a periodic penalty payment, it is for the Court, in exercising its discretion, to set that periodic penalty payment so that it is appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate both to the breach that has been established and to the capacity of the Member State concerned to pay (see, inter alia, Commission v Portugal, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
31 Nadalje, u vezi s načinima izračuna takve novčane kazne, na Sudu je da prilikom izvršavanja svojih ovlasti procjene odredi novčanu kaznu tako da je, s jedne strane, prilagođena okolnostima i, s druge strane, proporcionalna utvrđenoj povredi kao i sposobnosti plaćanja dotične države članice (vidjeti osobito navedenu presudu Komisija/Portugal, t. 38., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
32 In that light, the basic criteria which must be taken into account in order to ensure that periodic penalty payments have coercive force and that Community law is applied uniformly and effectively are, in principle, the degree of seriousness of the infringement, its duration and the capacity of the Member State to pay. In applying those criteria, regard should be had in particular to the effects of failure to comply on private and public interests and to the urgency of inducing the Member State concerned to fulfil its obligations (see Commission v Portugal, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).
32 S toga stajališta, osnovni kriteriji koje treba uzeti u obzir kako bi se osigurala prisilna priroda novčane kazne u pogledu ujednačene i učinkovite primjene prava Zajednice su u načelu stupanj težine povrede, njezino trajanje i sposobnost plaćanja dotične države članice. Prilikom primjene tih kriterija posebno treba voditi računa o posljedicama neizvršenja u pogledu privatnih i javnih interesa kao i o hitnosti da se dotična država članica prisili na ispunjavanje svojih obveza (vidjeti presudu Komisija/Portugal, t. 39., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
33 As regards, first, the seriousness of the infringement and, in particular, the effects on public and private interests of the failure to comply with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, it must be held that the prohibition of the installation, operation and use of all electrical, electromechanical and electronic games, including all computer games, on all public or private premises apart from casinos, as laid down by the national legislation at issue in the case which led to that judgment, infringes the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment as provided for in Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC.
33 Prvo, što se tiče težine povrede i posebno posljedica neizvršenja presude Komisija/Grčka u pogledu privatnih i javnih interesa, valja utvrditi da zabrana instaliranja, korištenja i upotrebe svih električnih, elektromehaničkih i elektroničkih igara, uključujući sve igre na računalima, u svim javnim ili privatnim prostorijama osim casina, kako je predviđena dotičnim nacionalnim zakonodavstvom u predmetu koji je doveo do te presude, krši načelo slobode kretanja roba, slobode pružanja usluga i slobode poslovnog nastana, kako su utvrđena člancima 28. UEZ-a, 43. UEZ-a i 49. UEZ-a.
34 As the Court noted in paragraphs 29, 30, 51 and 55 of the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, those national rules did not only lead to a reduction in the volume of imports of such games from other Member States, but actually caused those imports to stop when that prohibition came into force. In addition, those rules prevent traders from other Member States from providing their services, or even establishing themselves in Greece for that purpose.
34 Kako je Sud utvrdio u točkama 29., 30., 51. i 55. presude Komisija/Grčka, ti nacionalni propisi nisu samo doveli do smanjenja količine uvoza takvih igara iz drugih država članica, nego su, u stvari, doveli do obustave tih uvoza zbog uvođenja navedene zabrane. Osim toga, navedeni propisi sprečavaju gospodarske subjekte iz drugih država članica da pružaju svoje usluge ili čak osnivaju poslovni nastan u Grčkoj u tu svrhu.
35 Furthermore, as the Advocate General has noted in point 54 of his Opinion, the Hellenic Republic has not taken any measures to suspend application of the legislation at issue in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, and has therefore made traders subject to financial and custodial penalties on the basis of that legislation. It is therefore essential that the Hellenic Republic amend that legislation.
35 Osim toga, kao što je istaknuo nezavisni odvjetnik u točki 54. svojeg mišljenja, Helenska Republika nije poduzela nikakve mjere kako bi se obustavila primjena spornog zakonodavstva u predmetu koji je doveo do presude Komisija/Grčka, te je stoga na osnovi toga zakonodavstva dopustila da gospodarski subjekti podliježu zatvorskim i novčanim kaznama. Zbog toga je nužno da Helenska Republika izmijeni to zakonodavstvo.
36 Lastly, account must also be taken of the fact that the infringement established in the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece is based on the failure to notify technical regulations as provided for in Article 8 of Directive 98/34. Compliance with that particular obligation was an essential precondition for full attainment of the objective pursued by that directive, as set out in recitals 2 and 3 in the preamble thereto, of promoting the smooth functioning of the internal market.
36 Konačno, isto tako valja voditi računa o činjenici da se povreda utvrđena u presudi Komisija/Grčka temelji na neobavještavanju o tehničkim pravilima kako je predviđeno u članku 8. Direktive 98/34. Poštovanje ove posebne obveze predstavljalo je nužan preduvjet za potpuno ostvarenje cilja te direktive, kako je navedeno u uvodnim izjavama 2. i 3. s ciljem osiguranja dobrog funkcioniranja unutarnjeg tržišta.
37 In addition, the purpose of the national rules at issue in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece was to combat the serious social problems caused by the fact that the games concerned could easily be converted into games of chance, which are prohibited in Greece outside casinos. At paragraph 38 of the judgment in that case, the Court accepted that the overriding public-interest reasons put forward by the Hellenic Republic might justify the barrier to the free movement of goods established in that case. At paragraph 41 of that judgment, however, the Court held that the prohibition of the games in question on all public and private premises apart from casinos constitutes a measure which is disproportionate in view of the objective pursued.
37 Osim toga, cilj spornih nacionalnih propisa u predmetu koji je doveo do presude Komisija/Grčka bio je suzbijanje teških socijalnih problema uzrokovanih činjenicom da je dotične igre lako moguće pretvoriti u igre na sreću koje su u Grčkoj zabranjene izvan casina. Sud je u točki 38. te presude priznao da bi važni razlozi u općem interesu na koje se pozivala Helenska Republika mogli opravdati prepreku slobodi kretanja roba utvrđenu u tom predmetu. Međutim, u točki 41. navedene presude Sud smatra da zabrana navedenih igara u svim javnim ili privatnim prostorijama, osim casina, predstavlja neproporcionalnu mjeru u pogledu cilja kojem se teži.
38 In the light of those considerations, the coefficient designed to take account of the seriousness of the infringement should be set at 8, which appropriately reflects the particular nature of the infringement in question.
38 Uzimajući u obzir ta razmatranja, koeficijent namijenjen određivanju stupnja težine povrede valja postaviti na 8, što primjereno odražava značajke dotične povrede.
39 As regards, second, the duration of the infringement, that must be appraised by reference to the time at which the Court assesses the facts in the proceedings brought under Article 228 EC, not the time at which the case is brought before it by the Commission (see Commission v Portugal, paragraph 45).
39 Drugo, što se tiče trajanja povrede, treba je procijeniti s obzirom na trenutak u kojem Sud ocjenjuje činjenice u okviru postupka koji je pokrenut na temelju članka 228. UEZ-a, a ne na trenutak kada mu se obratila Komisija (vidjeti presudu Komisija/Portugal, t. 45.).
40 In the present case, the Hellenic Republic’s failure to fulfil its obligation to comply with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece has lasted for more than two years, account being taken of the time that has elapsed since 26 October 2006, the date on which that judgment was delivered.
40 U ovom slučaju povreda obveze Helenske Republike u pogledu izvršenja presude Komisija/Grčka traje dulje od dvije godine, uzevši u obzir vrijeme koje je proteklo od 26. listopada 2006., datuma proglašenja navedene presude.
41 In those circumstances, a coefficient of 1.5 (on a sliding scale of 1 to 3) appears appropriate in order to take account of the duration of the infringement.
41 U tim se okolnostima koeficijent 1,5 (na ljestvici od 1 do 3) čini primjereniji s obzirom na trajanje povrede.
42 As regards, third, the capacity of the Member State concerned to pay, the Commission’s suggestion that a coefficient be selected which is based on the gross domestic product of the Member State in question and on the number of votes which it has in the Council is an appropriate way, in principle, of reflecting that criterion, while keeping the variation between Member States within a reasonable range (see, to that effect, Commission v Portugal, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
42 Treće, što se tiče sposobnosti plaćanja dotične države članice, prijedlog Komisije da se zadrži koeficijent koji se temelji na bruto domaćem proizvodu dotične države članice i na broju glasova koji ima u Vijeću predstavlja u načelu primjeren način odražavanja toga kriterija, vodeći računa o razumnim razlikama između različitih država članica (vidjeti, u tom smislu, presudu Komisija/Portugal, t. 48., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
43 In the present case, the coefficient of 4.38 suggested by the Commission, and referred to in the communication of 13 December 2005 on the application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty, adequately reflects the evolution of the factors which form the basis of the evaluation of the Hellenic Republic’s capacity to pay.
43 U ovom slučaju koeficijent 4,38 koji je predložila Komisija i koji je naveden u obavijesti o provedbi članka 228. Ugovora o EZ-u od 13. prosinca 2005., primjereno odražava razvoj čimbenika koji čine temelj procjene sposobnosti plaćanja Helenske Republike.