natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
100 In view of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first seven questions referred to the Court must be that examination thereof has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004.
100 S obzirom na sva prethodna razmatranja, na prvih sedam postavljenih pitanja valja odgovoriti da ispitivanjem tih pitanja nije otkriven nijedan element koji bi mogao utjecati na valjanost članaka 5., 6. i 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004.
101 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
101 Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka.
1. Where a court against whose decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law considers that one or more arguments for invalidity of a Community act which have been put forward by the parties or, as the case may be, raised by it of its own motion are well founded, it must stay proceedings and make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the act's validity.
1. Kada sud protiv čijih odluka prema nacionalnom pravu postoji pravni lijek smatra da su jedan ili više razloga nevaljanosti akta Zajednice na koje se pozovu stranke, odnosno na koje sud pazi po službenoj dužnosti, utemeljeni, sud mora prekinuti postupak i obratiti se Sudu putem postupka povodom prethodnog pitanja koje se tiče valjanosti.
2. Examination of the questions referred to the Court has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91.
2. Razmatranjem postavljenih pitanja nije otkriven nijedan element koji bi mogao utjecati na valjanost članaka 5., 6. i 7. Uredbe (EZ) br. 261/2004 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o utvrđivanju općih pravila odštete i pomoći putnicima u slučaju uskraćenog ukrcaja i otkazivanja ili dužeg kašnjenja leta te o stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe (EEZ) br. 295/91.
(Telecommunication services - Directive 97/13/EC - Article 11(1) - Fees and charges for individual licences - Article 10 EC - Primacy of Community law - Legal certainty - Final administrative decision)
„Telekomunikacijske usluge - Direktiva 97/13/EZ - Članak 11. stavak 1. - Naknade i pristojbe koje se primjenjuju na pojedinačne dozvole - Članak 10. UEZ-a - Nadređenost prava Zajednice - Pravna sigurnost - Konačna upravna odlukaˮ
In Joined Cases C-392/04 and C-422/04,
U spojenim predmetima C-392/04 i C-422/04,
REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decisions of 7 July 2004, received at the Court on 16 September and 4 October 2004 respectively, in the proceedings
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Savezni upravni sud, Njemačka), odlukama od 7. srpnja 2004., koje je Sud zaprimio 16. rujna 2004. odnosno 4. listopada 2004. u postupcima
i-21 Germany GmbH (C-392/04),
i-21 Germany GmbH (C-392/04),
Arcor AG & Co.
Arcor AG & Co.
KG (C-422/04), formerly ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH & Co.
KG (C-422/04), prije ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH & Co.
KG,
KG,
v Bundesrepublik Deutschland,
protiv Bundesrepublik Deutschland,
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges,
u sastavu V. Skouris, predsjednik, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. Rosas i J. Malenovský, predsjednici vijeća, S. von Bahr (izvjestitelj), J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet i M. Ilešič, suci,
Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator,
tajnik: B. Fülöp, administrator,
i-21 Germany GmbH, by M. Geppert and M. Schütze, Rechtsanwälte, and B. Kemper, Rechtsanwältin,
za i-21 Germany GmbH, M. Geppert i M. Schütze, Rechtsanwälte, i B. Kemper, Rectsanwälte,
Arcor AG & Co.
za Arcor AG & Co.
KG, by N. Nolte and J. Tiedemann, Rechtsanwälte,
KG, N. Nolte i J. Tiedemann, Rechtsanwälte,
Bundesrepublik Deutschland, by S. Prömper, acting as Agent,
za Bundesrepublik Deutschland, S. Prömper, u svojstvu agenta,
the Netherlands Government, by H. G. Sevenster and C. ten Dam, acting as Agents,
za nizozemsku vladu, H. G. Sevenster i C. ten Dam, u svojstvu agenata,
the Commission of the European Communities, by M. Shotter and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents,
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, M. Shotter i S. Grünheid, u svojstvu agenata,
1 These references for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15) and of Article 10 EC.
1 Zahtjevi za prethodnu odluku odnose se na tumačenje članka 11. stavka 1. Direktive 97/13/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 10. travnja 1997. o zajedničkom okviru za opća ovlaštenja i pojedinačne dozvole u području telekomunikacijskih usluga (SL L 117, str. 15.) i članka 10. UEZ-a.
2 The references have been made in the course of two sets of proceedings between, first, i-21 Germany GmbH (`i-21') and, second, Arcor AG & Co.
2 Zahtjevi su upućeni u okviru dva spora između, u prvom slučaju, društva i‑21 Germany GmbH (u daljnjem tekstu: i-21) i, u drugom slučaju, društva Arcor AG & Co.
KG, formerly ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH & Co.
KG, prije ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH & Co.
KG (`Arcor'), and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) concerning fees paid by those companies in order to obtain a telecommunications licence.
KG (u daljnjem tekstu: Arcor), i Bundesrepublik Deutschland u vezi s naknadama koje su ta društva platila za dobivanje telekomunikacijskih dozvola.
Community law
Pravo Zajednice
`Member States shall ensure that any fees imposed on undertakings as part of authorisation procedures seek only to cover the administrative costs incurred in the issue, management, control and enforcement of the applicable individual licences.
„Države članice osiguravaju da su sve naknade nametnute poduzetnicima u okviru postupaka za izdavanje dozvola namijenjene samo pokrivanju upravnih troškova povezanih s izdavanjem, upravljanjem, kontrolom i uporabom pojedinačnih dozvola koje se primjenjuju.
The fees for an individual licence shall be proportionate to the work involved and be published in an appropriate and sufficiently detailed manner, so as to be readily accessible.'
Naknade za pojedinačnu dozvolu proporcionalne su opsegu posla i objavljuju se na odgovarajući način i dovoljno detaljno kako bi informacije bile lako dostupne.ˮ [neslužbeni prijevod]
4 Directive 97/13 was repealed by Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).
4 Direktiva 97/13 stavljena je izvan snage Direktivom 2002/21/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 7. ožujka 2002. o zajedničkom regulatornom okviru za elektroničke komunikacijske mreže i usluge (Okvirna direktiva) (SL 2002 L 108, str. 33.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 13., svezak 49., str. 25. - 42.).
5 Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 was transposed into German national law by the Law on Telecommunications (Telekommunikationsgesetz) of 25 July 1996 (BGBl. 1996 I, p. 1120, the `TKG'), which is an enabling law, and by the Regulation on Telecommunications Licence Fees (Telekommunikations-Lizenzgebührenverordnung) of 28 July 1997 (BGBl. 1997 I, p. 1936, the `TKLGebV'), adopted by the Federal Minister for Post and Telecommunications on the basis of the TKG.
5 Članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 97/13 prenesen je u njemačko nacionalno pravo Zakonom o telekomunikacijama (Telekommunikationsgesetz) od 25. srpnja 1996. (BGBl. 1996 I, str. 1120., u daljnjem tekstu: TKG), kao zakon o ovlaštenjima, i Uredbom o davanjima za telekomunikacijske dozvole (Telekommunikations-Lizenzgebührenverordnung) od 28. srpnja 1997. (BGBl. 1997 I, str. 1936., u daljnjem tekstu: TKLGebV), koju je na temelju TKG-a donio savezni ministar za poštu i telekomunikacije.
6 Paragraph 48(1) of the Law on Administrative Procedure (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) of 25 May 1976 (BGBl. 1976 I, p. 1253), in the version published on 21 September 1998 (BGBl. 1998 I, p. 3050), provides:
6 Članak 48. stavak 1. Zakona o upravnom postupku (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) od 25. svibnja 1976. (BGBl. 1976 I, str. 1253.), u verziji objavljenoj 21. rujna 1998. (BGBl. 1998 I, str. 3050.), predviđa:
`Withdrawal of unlawful administrative acts
„Povlačenje nezakonitog upravnog akta
An unlawful administrative act may, even after it can no longer be challenged, be withdrawn either wholly or in part with prospective or retroactive effect.
Čak i nakon što je postao konačan, nezakoniti upravni akt može se povući bilo u cijelosti ili djelomično s učinkom ex nunc ili ex tunc.
An administrative act by which a right or a legally significant advantage has been either conferred or confirmed (an administrative act conferring a benefit) may only be withdrawn under the conditions set out in subparagraphs 2 to 4.
Konstitutivni ili deklaratorni upravni akt u pogledu prava ili pravne koristi (upravni akt o generiranju prava) može se povući samo uz poštovanje uvjeta iz stavaka od 2. do 4.
7 In relation to a fee assessment for a telecommunications licence, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) states that, in the event of withdrawal of an assessment, the undertakings concerned are entitled to reimbursement of the sums unlawfully charged pursuant to Paragraph 21 of the Law on Administrative Costs (Verwaltungskostengesetz) of 23 June 1970 (BGBl. 1970 I, p. 821).
7 U vezi s odlukom o visini naknade za telekomunikacijske dozvole, Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Savezni upravni sud) navodi da, u slučaju povlačenja te odluke, dotični poduzetnici imaju pravo na nadoknadu nezakonito zaračunanih iznosa u skladu s člankom 21. Zakona u upravnim troškovima (Verwaltungskostengesetz) od 23. lipnja 1970. (BGBl. 1970 I, str. 821.).
8 It follows from the referral decisions that, according to German case-law, the administrative authority has discretion in principle, pursuant to Paragraph 48 of the Law on Administrative Procedure, to withdraw an unlawful administrative act which has become final.
8 Iz gore navedenih odluka proizlazi da, u skladu s njemačkom sudskom praksom, upravno tijelo u načelu ima diskrecijsko pravo, u skladu s člankom 48. Zakona o upravnom postupku, povući nezakoniti upravni akt koji je postao konačan.
That discretion may, however, be extinguished if to uphold the act in question would be `downright intolerable' in respect of public policy, good faith, fairness, equal treatment or manifest unlawfulness.
To diskrecijsko pravo može se poništiti ako je zadržavanje dotičnog akta „jednostavno nedopustivoˮ u pogledu javnog poretka, dobre vjere, pravednosti, jednakog postupanja ili očite nezakonitosti.
9 Arcor and i-21 are two telecommunications undertakings.
9 Arcor i i-21 su dva društva za telekomunikacije.
By way of two assessment notices of 14 June 2000 and 18 May 2001, the undertakings were charged fees for individual telecommunications licences of approximately EUR 5 420 000 in the case of i-21 and approximately EUR 67 000 in the case of Arcor.
Odlukama od 14. lipnja 2000. i 18. svibnja 2001. zaračunane su im naknade za pojedinačne telekomunikacijske dozvole u približnom iznosu od 5 420 000 eura u slučaju društva i-21 i približno 67 000 eura u slučaju društva Arcor.
They paid the fees without objection and did not appeal against them within the time-limit of one month from the date of notification of the fee assessments.
Ta su društva naknade platila bez prigovora i nisu se žalila na njih u roku od mjesec dana od datuma uručenja odluka o visini naknade.
10 Under the TKLGebV, the amount of the fee is to be based on the anticipated general administrative costs of the regulatory authority over a period of 30 years, to be charged in advance.
10 U skladu s TKLGebV-om, iznos naknade temelji se na očekivanim općim upravnim troškovima regulatornog tijela u 30-godišnjem razdoblju, koji se zaračunavaju unaprijed.
11 In the course of proceedings for annulment of a fee assessment notice which was challenged within the permitted time-limits, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht held in a judgment of 19 September 2001 that the TKLGebV was not compatible with higher-ranking legal rules, namely the TKG and German constitutional law, and upheld the annulment of the assessment in question which had been delivered by an appeal court.
11 Tijekom postupka za poništenje odluke o visini naknade koja je bila osporavana u dozvoljenim rokovima, Bundesverwaltungsgericht je u presudi od 19. rujna 2001. smatrao da TKLGebV nije spojiv s pravnim pravilima više razine, odnosno s TKG-om i njemačkim ustavnim zakonom i potvrdio je poništenje dotične odluke koju je prije donio žalbeni sud.
12 Following that judgment, i-21 and Arcor sought repayment of the fees which they had paid.
12 Na temelju te presude i‑21 i Arcor tražili su povrat naknada koje su platili.
However, their claims were not granted.
Međutim, njihovi zahtjevi nisu uvaženi.
They therefore each brought proceedings before the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), which dismissed them on the ground that their fee notices had become final and that in the present situation there were no grounds for challenging the administrative body's refusal to withdraw those assessments.
Oni su stoga svatko za sebe uložili tužbu na Verwaltungsgericht (Upravni sud), koji je obje tužbe odbacio zbog toga što su njihove odluke o naknadi postale konačne i zato što u ovom slučaju nije bilo temelja da se dovede u pitanje odbijanje upravnog tijela da povuče te odluke.
13 Arcor and i-21 took the view that the Verwaltungsgericht had erred in law in relation not only to national law but also to Community law and brought proceedings for an appeal on a point of law before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht. i-21 submits that it had to pay a fee more than one thousand times higher than that imposed on the telecommunications undertakings following the judgment of 19 September 2001 cited above.
13 Arcor i i-21 smatrali su da je Verwaltungsgericht povrijedio ne samo nacionalno pravo, već i pravo Zajednice pa su pred Bundesverwaltungsgerichtom podnijeli prijedlog za ponavljanje postupka. i‑21 tvrdi da je prema gore navedenoj presudi od 19. rujna 2001. morao platiti naknadu koja je više od tisuću puta veća od iznosa koji vrijedi za poduzetnike za telekomunikacije.
14 In its referral decisions, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht states that the appeals on a point of law could not succeed on the basis of national law alone.
14 U odlukama kojima Bundesverwaltungsgericht upućuje prethodna pitanja navodi da se prijedlozi za ponavljanje postupka (revision) ne mogu prihvatiti samo na temelju nacionalnog prava.
According to that court, these are not cases in which to uphold the fee assessments would be `downright intolerable' and in which the administration's discretion was reduced to such a degree that it had no choice other than to withdraw the notices.
Prema mišljenju tog suda, ovdje se ne radi o slučajevima u kojima bi zadržavanje odluke o visini naknade bilo „jednostavno nedopustivoˮ i u kojima bi diskrecijsko pravo upravnog tijela bilo tako smanjeno da ono nema drugog izbora nego povući odluke.
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht takes the view that upholding the fee assessments does not prejudice the concepts of good faith, equal treatment or those of public policy or fairness, and that the notices at issue are also not based on manifestly unlawful legislation.
Bundesverwaltungsgericht smatra da zadržavanje odluka o visini naknade ne zadire u pojam dobre vjere ili jednakog postupanja ni u pojam javnog poretka ili pravednosti i da se dotične odluke ne temelje na očito nezakonitom propisu.
15 The national court, however, raises the question of the scope of Community law.
15 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev, međutim, postavlja pitanje o dosegu prava Zajednice.
It considers that Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 seems to preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
On smatra da je članku 11. stavku 1. Direktive 97/13 protivan pravni propis kao što je onaj o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku.
On the assumption that its interpretation of that provision is correct, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht then enquires as to whether that provision, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC concerning the obligation of loyal cooperation, fetters the regulatory authority's discretion having regard, inter alia, to Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz [2004] ECR I-837.
Pod pretpostavkom da je njegovo tumačenje te odredbe ispravno, Bundesverwaltungsgericht se zatim pita ne ograničava li ta odredba, u vezi s člankom 10. UEZ-a, koji se odnosi na obvezu lojalne suradnje, diskrecijsko pravo regulatornog tijela, osobito s obzirom na presudu od 13. siječnja 2004., Kühne & Heitz (C-453/00, Zb., str. I-837.).
16 The Bundesverwaltungsgericht is in particular unsure as to whether Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 is to be interpreted as requiring the Member States, when calculating the fee, to comply with the objectives of the directive and ensure that those objectives are observed.
16 Bundesverwaltungsgericht se pita osobito treba li članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 97/13 tumačiti tako da se od država članica zahtijeva da pri izračunu naknade poštuju ciljeve Direktive i osiguravaju njihovo poštovanje.
Those objectives include that of facilitating significantly the entry of new competitors onto the market.
Jedan od tih ciljeva je i cilj da se novim konkurentima značajno olakša ulazak na tržište.
However, upholding the fee assessments at issue amounts to a restriction on competition for the undertakings concerned, which are at a disadvantage compared, in particular, with those undertakings which contested the assessments addressed to them within the given time-limits and succeeded in having them annulled.
Međutim, zadržavanje dotičnih odluka o visini naknade znači ograničavanje tržišnog natjecanja za dotične poduzetnike, koji bi bili stavljeni u slabiji položaj posebno u usporedbi s onim poduzetnicima koji su u propisanim rokovima osporavali odluke o visini naknade koje su im bile upućene i koji su ishodili da ih se poništi.
According to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, if that article were to be construed as prohibiting such a restriction on competition, the principle of cooperation contained in Article 10 EC might give rise to an obligation to reopen the fee assessments at issue under national law without the administrative authority having any discretion.
Prema mišljenju Bundesverwaltungsgerichta, ukoliko taj članak treba tumačiti tako da zabranjuje takvo ograničenje u području tržišnog natjecanja, načelo suradnje iz članka 10. UEZ-a može imati za posljedicu obvezu ponovnog otvaranja postupka za dotične odluke o visini naknade na temelju nacionalnog prava, bez diskrecijskog prava upravnog tijela.
17 In those circumstances, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court:
17 U tim je okolnostima, Bundesverwaltungsgericht odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`(1) Is Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13/EC ... to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a licence fee calculated to anticipate the amount of a national regulatory authority's general administrative costs over a period of 30 years, to be charged in advance?
„1. Treba li članak 11. stavak 1. Direktive 97/13/EZ [...] tumačiti tako da mu je protivno plaćanje naknade za dozvolu koja se zaračunava unaprijed na temelju iznosa očekivanih općih upravnih troškova nacionalnog regulatornog tijela u 30-godišnjem razdoblje?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
U slučaju potvrdnog odgovora na prvo pitanje:
(2) Are Article 10 EC and Article 11 of the Directive [97/13] to be interpreted as meaning that a fee assessment that determines fees within the meaning of Question 1 and which has not been contested, although such a possibility is afforded under national law, must be set aside where that is permissible under national law but not mandatory?'
2. Treba li članak 10. UEZ-a i članak 11. Direktive [97/13] tumačiti tako da odluku o visini naknade u smislu prvog pitanja, koja nije bila osporavana iako takva mogućnost postoji prema nacionalnom pravu, treba proglasiti nevaljanom kada nacionalno pravo to dozvoljava, ali ne zahtijeva?ˮ
18 By order of 6 December 2004, Cases C-392/04 and C-422/04 were joined for the purposes of the oral procedure and the judgment.
18 Odlukom od 6. prosinca 2004. predmeti C-392/04 i C-422/04 spojeni su u svrhu usmenog postupka i presude.
19 Arcor, i-21 and the Commission of the European Communities maintain that Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 precludes a charge such as that provided for in the German legislation at issue in the main proceedings.
19 Arcor, i-21 i Komisija Europskih zajednica smatraju da je članku 11. stavku 1. Direktive 97/13 protivna naknada kao što je ona koju predviđa njemačko zakonodavstvo, o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku.
20 The German Government contends, on the contrary, that that article does not apply to the present cases, since Directive 97/13 was repealed by Directive 2002/21 and the latter directive does not contain any transitional measures relating to the application of Article 11(1).
20 Njemačka vlada ističe, suprotno tome, da se taj članak ne primjenjuje na dotične slučajeve jer je Direktiva 97/13 stavljena izvan snage Direktivom 2002/21, a potonja ne sadrži nikakve prijelazne mjere u vezi s primjenom članka 11. stavka 1.
21 The German Government maintains that, in any event, Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13 does not preclude the imposition of a charge such as that provided for in the German legislation.
21 Njemačka vlada tvrdi da članku 11. stavku 1. Direktive 97/13 nikako nije protivno nametanje naknade kao što je ona koju predviđa njemačko zakonodavstvo.
First, the administrative costs referred to in that article include general administrative costs.
S jedne strane, upravni troškovi iz tog članka uključuju opće upravne troškove.
Secondly, that article does not provide that only administrative costs actually incurred can be included in the charge, to the exclusion of future administrative costs.
S druge strane, taj članak ne predviđa da se u naknadu mogu uključiti samo stvarno nastali upravni troškovi uz isključenje budućih upravnih troškova.
Taking the latter into account constitutes a guarantee of certainty for undertakings which are assured of being subject to no further charges in the future in relation to the licence.
Uzimanje u obzir potonjih jamstvo je sigurnosti za poduzetnike kojima se tako osigurava da u budućnosti neće biti izloženi daljnjim terećenjima u vezi s dozvolom.
22 It is first of all appropriate to examine the argument of the German Government that Article 11 of Directive 97/13 does not apply to the disputes at issue in the main proceedings on the ground Directive 97/13 was repealed by a later directive.
22 Najprije valja ispitati argument njemačke vlade da se članak 11. Direktive 97/13 ne primjenjuje na sporove u glavnom postupku budući da je Direktiva 97/13 stavljena izvan snage jednom kasnijom direktivom.
23 It should be noted in that regard that Directive 97/13 was repealed by Article 26 of Directive 2002/21 with effect from 25 July 2003 in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 28(1) of the latter directive.
23 U tom smislu valja utvrditi da je Direktiva 97/13 stavljena izvan snage člankom 26. Direktive 2002/21 s učinkom od 25. srpnja 2003. u skladu s drugim podstavkom članka 28. stavka 1. potonje direktive.