natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
47 The Republic of Austria raises a plea of inadmissibility against the statement in intervention of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It submits that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is attempting to extend the subject-matter of the action by arguing that the sectoral traffic prohibition constitutes indirect discrimination, in that it does not affect all lorry traffic, but only traffic by lorries of over 7.5 t.
47 Republika Austrija iznosi prigovor o nedopuštenosti intervencijskog podneska Kraljevine Nizozemske. Navodi da Kraljevina Nizozemska pokušava proširiti predmet spora tvrdeći da zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste znači neizravnu diskriminaciju time što se ne odnosi na cjelokupan promet teretnih vozila, nego samo teretnih vozila preko 7,5 t.
48 The Republic of Austria also raises a plea of inadmissibility against the statement in intervention of the Italian Republic. It submits that the Italian Republic is putting forward a new plea in law by mentioning, as an alternative to the sectoral traffic prohibition, a measure that was not considered by the Commission, namely the possibility of introducing a prohibition of traffic relating to passenger and commercial vehicles of less than 7.5 t, according to the Euro class to which they belong.
48 Republika Austrija također iznosi prigovor o nedopuštenosti intervencijskog podneska Talijanske Republike. Navodi da Talijanska Republika ističe novi prigovor kada spominje da Komisija nije, kao alternativu zabrani prometa na dionici autoceste, razmotrila mogućnost uvođenja zabrane prometa za osobna i gospodarska vozila ispod 7,5 t ovisno o razredu Euro kojem pripadaju.
49 The latter plea of inadmissibility was contested by the Italian Republic at the hearing.
49 Talijanska vlada osporavala je taj prigovor tijekom rasprave.
"50 In assessing whether the pleas of inadmissibility raised against the statements in intervention are well founded, it must be recalled that under the fourth paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union an application to intervene is to be limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the parties. That provision does not, however, preclude an intervener from putting forward arguments that are new or different from those of the party it supports, as long as its purpose is to support the form of order sought by that party (see, inter alia, Case 30/59 De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority [1961] ECR 1; Case C-150/94 United Kingdom v Council [1998] ECR I-7235, paragraph 36; and Case C-334/08 Commission v Italy [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 53 to 55)."
50 Kod ocjenjivanja osnovanosti prigovorâ o nedopuštenosti intervencijskih postupaka, valja podsjetiti da prema četvrtom stavku članka 40. Statuta Suda Europske unije zahtjev za intervenciju treba ograničiti na potporu tužbenom zahtjevu jedne od stranaka. Tom se uredbom, međutim, ne sprječava mogućnost da intervenijent iznese nove argumente ili argumente koji se razlikuju od argumenata stranke koju podupire, sve dok je njihov cilj poduprijeti tužbeni zahtjev te stranke (vidjeti osobito presude od 23. veljače 1961., De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg/Vrhovno tijelo, C-30/59, Zb., str. 1., od 19. studenog 1998., Ujedinjena Kraljevina/Vijeće, C-150/94, Zb., str. I-7235., t. 36., i od 8. srpnja 2010., Komisija/Italija, C-334/08, Zb., str.I-6869., t. od 53. do 55.).
51 The argument of the Kingdom of the Netherlands relates to the Commission’s complaint that the sectoral traffic prohibition is discriminatory. The argument of the Italian Republic relates to the allegedly disproportionate nature of that prohibition, and more particularly to the complaint that the Republic of Austria failed to examine closely the possibility of having recourse to measures that were less restrictive of the free movement of goods.
51 Argument Kraljevine Nizozemske odnosi se na prigovor Komisije da je zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste diskriminirajuća. Argument Talijanske Republike odnosi se na navodnu neproporcionalnost te zabrane, tj. na prigovor da Republika Austrija nije pomno ispitala mogućnost primjene mjera koje manje ograničavaju slobodu kretanja robe.
52 While those arguments differ from those of the Commission, they none the less relate to complaints raised by the Commission and are intended to support the form of order sought by it. They are intended to contribute to the success of the action for failure to fulfil obligations by shedding further light on the dispute (see, to that effect, Case C-185/00 Commission v Finland [2003] ECR I-14189, paragraph 92).
52 Iako se ti argumenti razlikuju od argumenata Komisije, oni su ipak povezani s prigovorima koje je iznijela Komisija i cilj im je podržati njezin tužbeni zahtjev. Njima se dodatnim razjašnjavanjem okolnosti spora želi pridonijeti uspješnosti tužbe zbog povrede obveze (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 27. studenoga 2003., Komisija/Finska, C-185/00, Zb., str. I-14189., t. 92.).
53 It follows that the pleas of inadmissibility must be rejected.
53 Iz prethodno navedenog proizlazi da te prigovore nedopuštenosti treba odbaciti.
54 The Commission starts by emphasising that it by no means underestimates the problems connected with transalpine traffic. It also acknowledges that since 2002 values in excess of the limit value for nitrogen dioxide fixed in Section I of Annex II to Directive 1999/30 have been found on the A 12 motorway, and that Directive 96/62 laid down an obligation in such circumstances for the Republic of Austria to take action. While most of the proposed measures intended to improve air quality in the zone in question could have been approved, the fact remains that the contested regulation is not consistent with European Union law.
54 Komisija prije svega ističe da ni u kojem slučaju ne podcjenjuje probleme vezane uz prekoalpski promet. Također potvrđuje da su od 2002. na autocesti A 12 zabilježena prekoračenja granične vrijednosti za dušikov dioksid kako je utvrđena u odjeljku I. Priloga II. Direktivi 1999/30 te da Direktiva 96/62 u takvim okolnostima propisuje obvezu da Republika Austrija poduzme mjere. Iako bi se većina predloženih mjera za poboljšanje kvalitete zraka u dotičnom području mogla odobriti, i dalje ostaje da sporna uredba nije usklađena s pravom Unije.
55 In the Commission’s view, the sectoral traffic prohibition is a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Articles 28 EC and 29 EC, in so far as it hinders the free movement of goods, in particular their free transit.
55 Prema mišljenju Komisije zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste mjera je s istovrsnim učinkom kao količinska ograničenja u smislu članaka 28. UEZ-a i 29. UEZ-a budući da sprječava slobodno kretanje robe, a posebno slobodan provoz.
56 The fact that the contested regulation forms part of a package of measures adopted by the Austrian authorities has no bearing on whether or not there is a restriction of the exercise of that freedom, since all national measures have to be assessed individually to establish whether they are compatible with those articles.
56 Činjenica da je sporna uredba dio paketa mjera koje su donijele austrijske vlasti nema utjecaja na postojanje ili nepostojanje ograničenja ostvarivanja te slobode budući da radi utvrđivanja usklađenosti s tim člancima svaku nacionalnu mjeru treba pojedinačno ocijeniti.
57 The present case concerns a measure that is more radical than that at issue in Case C-320/03 Commission v Austria. The traffic concerned by the implementation of the prohibition is not only that on the ‘north-south axis’ (the Italy-Brenner-Innsbruck-Langkampfen-Germany link) and the ‘north-west axis’ (the Vorarlberg-Eastern Europe link) but also that on the ‘south-west axis’ (the Italy-Innsbruck-Vorarlberg/Lake Constance region link). According to estimates, when the first stage of the sectoral traffic prohibition was implemented on 2 May 2008, 35 000 journeys a year by lorry were affected. With the implementation of the second stage on 1 January 2009, the measure was to affect 200 000 journeys a year, representing 7.3% of total journeys by lorry on the A 12 motorway. The effects of the measure extended to about 300 km of the Austrian network of fast highways.
57 Ovaj se predmet odnosi na mjeru koja je radikalnija od one iz predmeta C-320/03 Komisija/Austrija. Provođenje zabrane na utječe samo na promet na „pravcu sjever-jug” (veza Italija-Brenner-Innsbruck-Langkampfen-Njemačka) i „pravcu sjever-zapad” (veza Vorarlberg-istočna Europa), nego i na promet na „pravcu jug-zapad” (veza Italija-Innsbruck-Vorarlberg/regija Bodenskog jezera). Procjenjuje se da je od uvođenja prve faze zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste tj. od 2. svibnja 2008. ta zabrana utjecala na 35 000 vožnji teretnih vozila godišnje. Uvođenjem druge faze od 1. siječnja 2009. mjera je utjecala na 200 000 vožnji godišnje, što čini 7,3 % ukupnih vožnji teretnih vozila na autocesti A 12. Učinci te mjere proširili su se na otprilike 300 km austrijske mreže brzih cesta.
58 The Commission submits that, to transport the goods mentioned in the contested regulation, it is necessary either to use rail transport or to use longer routes by road, which creates additional costs for the operators concerned. The sectoral traffic prohibition thus has substantial economic repercussions not only for the transport industry but also for manufacturers of the goods concerned by the regulation, who will have to bear higher transport costs, which will affect their competitiveness.
58 Komisija tvrdi da za prijevoz robe iz sporne uredbe treba koristiti ili željeznički prijevoz ili duže cestovne pravce, što stvara dodatne troškove za predmetne gospodarske subjekte. Zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste, dakle, ima značajne ekonomske posljedice ne samo na sektor prijevoza, nego i na proizvođače robe obuhvaćene uredbom, koji moraju snositi veće troškove prijevoza, što utječe na njihovu konkurentnost.
59 According to the Commission, the contested regulation is discriminatory. Since local and regional traffic is excepted from the scope of the sectoral traffic prohibition, the prohibition de facto affects predominantly the international transit of goods. In addition, it may be feared that transport undertakings able to benefit from that exception will take advantage of the exception provisions to offer long-distance road transport which can no longer be offered by undertakings established outside the region.
59 Prema mišljenju Komisije sporna je uredba diskriminirajuća. Budući da je lokalni i regionalni promet izuzet iz područja primjene zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste, ona de facto utječe, prije svega, na međunarodni provoz robe. Osim toga, postoji bojazan da bi prijevozna poduzeća koja imaju pravo na izuzeće mogla imati koristi od odredbi o izuzeću tako da nude cestovni prijevoz na duge relacije, što poduzeća s poslovnim nastanom izvan regije više ne mogu nuditi.
60 Moreover, in so far as the sectoral traffic prohibition does not relate directly to the emissions produced by goods vehicles but to the goods to be transported by them, it may have a discriminatory effect on trade between Member States. The Commission observes that inter alia the trade in wood and wood products and the trade in marble and travertine could be affected.
60 Osim toga, budući da zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste nije izravno povezana s emisijama iz teretnih vozila, nego s robom koju ona prevoze, to bi moglo imati diskriminirajući učinak na trgovinu između država članica. Komisija ističe da bi zabrana mogla utjecati osobito na trgovinu drvom i drvnim proizvodima te na trgovinu mramorom i travertinom.
61 As to the existence of a possible justification for the sectoral traffic prohibition, the Commission accepts that the prohibition may contribute to attaining the objective of protection of the environment. It calls into question, however, the compatibility of the measure with the principle of proportionality.
61 Što se tiče mogućeg obrazloženja zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste, Komisija prihvaća da bi zabrana mogla pridonijeti postizanju cilja zaštite okoliša. Ona ipak dovodi u pitanje spojivost mjere s načelom proporcionalnosti.
62 The sectoral traffic prohibition is vitiated by internal contradictions, so that it has not been shown to be appropriate to the objective sought.
62 Zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste sadržava unutarnje proturječnosti, tako da nije dokazana njezina primjerenost s obzirom na predviđeni cilj.
63 According to the Commission, the principal objective of the contested regulation is not to reduce the emissions produced by motor vehicles but to reduce road traffic. Such a reduction has only an indirect influence on air quality.
63 Komisija smatra da glavni cilj sporne uredbe nije smanjenje emisija iz motornih vozila, nego smanjenje cestovnog prometa. Takvo smanjenje ima samo neizravni učinak na kvalitetu zraka.
64 Since the sectoral traffic prohibition relates to the goods to be transported, not directly to the emissions produced by goods vehicles, it has the consequence that lorries producing more pollution are permitted if they carry goods that do not fall within the scope of the prohibition, while less polluting lorries are prohibited if they carry ceramic tiles, for example.
64 Budući da se zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste odnosi na robu koja se prevozi, a ne izravno na emisije iz teretnih vozila, slijedi da se promet teretnih vozila koja više onečišćuju dopušta ako prevoze robu koja ne potpada pod područje primjene zabrane, dok se zabranjuje promet teretnih vozila koja manje onečišćuju, ali prevoze, na primjer, keramičke pločice.
65 Moreover, the decision to direct goods with an ‘affinity with rail’ towards that mode of transport ignores the fact that the possibility of having recourse to rail transport often depends on various logistic parameters of the transport operation to be performed, such as the volume to be transported. In addition, that criterion is too vague, and it is not impossible that the goods to which the prohibition was to apply were selected in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, the selection later being extended to cover other classes of goods.
65 Osim toga, odlukom da se roba koja je „prikladna za prijevoz željeznicom” usmjeri na to prijevozno sredstvo zanemaruje se činjenica da mogućnost korištenja željezničkim prijevozom često ovisi o različitim logističkim parametrima traženog prijevoza, kao što je obujam robe koja se prevozi. Nadalje, spomenuti kriterij je preopćenit i nije isključeno da je roba na koju se zabrana primjenjuje odabrana proizvoljno ili na diskriminirajući način i da taj odabir kasnije bude proširen na ostale vrste robe.
66 In the Commission’s view, not all the conceivable alternatives to the sectoral traffic prohibition were examined and, if appropriate, adopted by the Austrian authorities. The various measures that would be less restrictive of the free movement of goods include, in its opinion, replacing the variable speed limit by a permanent 100 km/h speed limit.
66 Komisija smatra da austrijske vlasti nisu ispitale sve moguće alternative zabrani prometa na dionici autoceste i, prema potrebi, donijele takve mjere. Razne mjere koje bi, prema njezinom mišljenju, manje ograničavale slobodu kretanja robe uključuju zamjenu promjenjivog ograničenja brzine trajnim ograničenjem na 100 km/h.
67 It argues that the report of the Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg of 30 November 2007 (‘the IFEU report’) shows that a permanent speed limit of 100 km/h could bring about a reduction by 2010 of nitrogen dioxide emissions by approximately 7.5%. With respect more particularly to the effect of such a limit as opposed to that of the variable speed limit, according to the calculations submitted by the Austrian authorities, the application of the variable limit makes it possible to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions in the zone in question by approximately 3.6% to 3.8% annually. The Republic of Austria accepted, in its reply to the reasoned opinion, that the effect of the variable speed limit was equivalent to 67% of the effect of a permanent speed limit of 100 km/h. It follows that replacing the variable speed limit by such a measure would make it possible to attain an additional reduction of those emissions by 1.8%, which is greater than the effect of the sectoral traffic prohibition, namely an annual reduction of those atmospheric pollutants by 1.5%.
67 Ona tvrdi da je u izvješću Instituta für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg od 30. studenog 2007. (u daljnjem tekstu: izvješće IFEU-a) dokazano da bi se trajnim ograničenjem brzine na 100 km/h emisije dušikovog dioksida smanjile otprilike 7,5 % do 2010. S obzirom na učinak takvog ograničenja spram učinka promjenjivog ograničenja brzine, za ovaj pojedinačni slučaj austrijske su vlasti dostavile izračune prema kojima bi primjena promjenjivog ograničenja omogućila smanjenje emisija dušikovog dioksida na predmetnom području otprilike 3,6 do 3,8 % godišnje. U svojem odgovoru na obrazloženo mišljenje Republika Austrija je priznala da je učinak promjenjivog ograničenja brzine ekvivalentan 67 %-tnom učinku trajnog ograničenja brzine na 100 km/h. Iz toga slijedi da bi se zamjenom promjenjivog ograničenja brzine gore spomenutom mjerom te emisije mogle dodatno smanjiti 1,8 %, što premašuje učinak zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste, odnosno godišnje smanjenje atmosferskog onečišćenja od 1,5 %.
68 As regards the analysis by Ökoscience of the effect on air quality of the application of the variable speed limit from November 2007 to October 2008 (‘the Ökoscience report’), relied on by the Republic of Austria to show that such a replacement would allow an additional annual reduction of only 1.1% of nitrogen dioxide emissions, that report was published in March 2009 and contains information that could only have been obtained after the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion on 8 March 2008.
68 Što se tiče analize Ökosciencea u vezi s učinkom primjene promjenjivog ograničenja brzine na kvalitetu zraka u razdoblju od studenog 2007. do listopada 2008. (u daljnjem tekstu: izvješće Ökosciencea), na koju se Republika Austrija poziva kao na dokaz da bi takva zamjena ograničenja omogućila dodatno godišnje smanjenje emisija dušikovog dioksida od samo 1,1 %, to je izvješće objavljeno u ožujku 2009. i sadržava podatke koje je bilo moguće prikupiti isključivo nakon isteka roka propisanog u obrazloženom mišljenju, tj. 8. ožujka 2008.
69 It would also have been possible to consider extending the traffic ban on lorries in certain Euro classes to those in other more advanced classes. The Republic of Austria opposed that suggestion in its reply to the reasoned opinion, asserting that lorries corresponding to standard Euro IV often emit more nitrogen dioxide than those corresponding to standard Euro III. Even if that were correct, the fact remains that a traffic prohibition for lorries in class Euro III would encourage many undertakings to make an early switch to class Euro V.
69 Osim toga, moglo se razmotriti proširenje zabrane prometa za teretna vozila u određenim razredima Euro na ostala teretna vozila iz naprednijih razreda. U svojem odgovoru na obrazloženo mišljenje Republika Austrija se usprotivila tom prijedlogu navodeći da teretna vozila usklađena s normom Euro IV često ispuštaju više dušikovog dioksida od onih iz norme Euro III. Čak i kad bi to bilo točno, i dalje vrijedi da bi zabrana prometa teretnih vozila iz razreda Euro III potaknula mnoga poduzeća na brzi prijelaz na razred Euro V.
70 The Commission also mentions the possibility of introducing traffic control measures such as the drop-counter system, establishing systems of tolls based on the quantity of pollutants emitted by vehicles, or adjusting the tax on mineral oils or consumption tax in order to encourage the purchase of motor vehicles equipped with petrol engines.
70 Komisija također spominje mogućnost uvođenja mjera za nadzor prometa, kao što je sustav brojenja kapi, te uspostave sustava plaćanja cestarina na temelju količine emisija onečišćujućih tvari iz vozila ili prilagođavanja poreza na mineralna ulja ili poreza na potrošnju kako bi se poticala kupovina motornih vozila s benzinskim motorom.
71 The Commission submits that, before deciding to implement the sectoral traffic prohibition, the Austrian authorities failed to make sure that there was sufficient and appropriate rail capacity for road transport of the goods concerned to be transferred to rail. The existence of such capacity has not been shown either for the section to the west of Innsbruck or for the section to the east of Innsbruck as regards the implementation of the second stage of the prohibition.
71 Komisija tvrdi da prije donošenja odluke o uvođenju zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste austrijske vlasti nisu provjerile jesu li kapaciteti željeznica dostatni i primjereni za prelazak s cestovnog prijevoza predmetne robe na željeznički. Postojanje takvih kapaciteta nije bilo dokazano ni za dionicu zapadno od Innsbrucka ni za dionicu istočno od Innsbrucka u pogledu provođenja druge faze zabrane.
72 As regards the possibility of making use of the highway on rails (‘Rollende Landstrasse’), that is, a method of transport in which lorries are loaded onto rail wagons for only part of the journey, that alternative exists only for the section east of Innsbruck. For that section, it was possible to ensure only part of the transport of the goods concerned by the implementation on 1 January 2009 of the second stage of the sectoral traffic prohibition, as originally provided for. While the highway on rails had sufficient capacity on 1 January 2009, that was simply because of changes made by the Republic of Austria after the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion.
72 Što se tiče mogućnosti korištenja uprtnim vlakovima („Rollende Landstrasse”), tj. prijevoza u kojem se teretna vozila utovare na vagone samo za jedan dio putovanja, ta alternativa postoji isključivo za dionicu istočno od Innsbrucka. Za tu je dionicu bilo moguće osigurati samo djelomični prijevoz robe na koju se odnosi provedba druge faze zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste, tj. od 1. siječnja 2009. kako je prvobitno predviđeno. Ako je 1. siječnja 2009. kapacitet uprtnih vlakova bio dostatan, to je bilo samo zbog izmjena koje je Republika Austrija uvela nakon isteka roka propisanog u obrazloženom mišljenju.
73 As regards the alternative of unaccompanied combined transport, that was of interest from an economic and logistical point of view only over long distances.
73 S ekonomskog i logističkog stajališta mogućnost kombiniranog prijevoza bez pratnje bio je isplativ isključivo na duge udaljenosti.
74 With respect to the possibility of using alternative routes, it appears that the local alternative routes are either closed to transit traffic or unsuitable for heavy vehicles. Transit traffic by the foreign lorries concerned would thus have to be diverted either via Switzerland or via the Tauern route in Austria, which would involve a considerably longer journey. Furthermore, the additional costs caused by the Swiss customs formalities would also have to be taken into account.
74 U pogledu upotrebe alternativnih pravaca, proizlazi da su lokalni alternativni pravci zatvoreni za tranzitni promet ili neprikladni za teretna vozila. Stoga bi tranzitni promet stranih teretnih vozila trebalo preusmjeriti preko Švicarske ili pravca Tauern u Austriji, što podrazumijeva znatno duže putovanje. Osim toga, treba uzeti u obzir i dodatne troškove zbog carinskih postupaka u Švicarskoj.
75 Finally, in the absence of realistic alternative solutions for the transport of the goods referred to in the contested regulation, the periods laid down for the implementation of the sectoral traffic prohibition are insufficient for reasonably enabling the operators concerned by the measure to adjust to the new circumstances.
75 Konačno, u nedostatku konkretnih alternativnih rješenja za prijevoz robe koja je navedena u spornoj uredbi, rokovi za provođenje zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste nisu dostatni da bi se gospodarskim subjektima koji su pogođeni tom mjerom omogućilo da se prilagode novim okolnostima.